Right of Return: Omar Shakir & Ken Roth Debate "Blocked" Human Rights Watch Report on Palestine

Omar Shakir asserts that his report, which had undergone a seven-month review and received sign-off from all relevant HRW departments, was pulled on the eve of its release by the new executive director, Philippe Bolopion. Shakir believes the decision was driven by a fear of political backlash and a reluctance to challenge the political preference of maintaining the 'Jewishness of the Israeli state,' rather than genuine legal or factual concerns.

Shakir states, 'My engagement with senior staffers made very clear that really the overriding concern here was a concern of being seen as challenging a political preference... The idea of maintaining the Jewishness of the Israeli state... that concern trumped calling for the fundamental rights of Palestinians to return to their home.' He also notes no written explanation for the decision was provided (03:00, 03:13, 05:17).

Ken Roth, former HRW executive director, criticizes the blocked report for applying a 'brand new theory' by classifying the denial of the right to return as a crime against humanity. He argues that the report failed to adequately demonstrate the 'extreme suffering' required by international law (citing the Rohingya case) for all six million Palestinian refugees, many of whom, he contends, lead ordinary lives or are citizens in other countries. Roth believes the report was 'shoddy' and lacked the nuance and detailed research necessary for such a complex legal determination.

Roth states, 'The issue is whether you call the denial of the right to return a crime against humanity. And that's a brand new theory.' He adds, 'Can you say that here for the six million Palestinian refugees? I mean, you know, many are are citizens in Jordan. They're leading ordinary lives... still suffering so greatly that it's a crime against humanity not to let them return.' (07:45, 08:42, 09:34).

Shakir challenges Roth's assertion that the legal theory is 'unsupported and untested,' pointing to HRW's own 2023 report on the Chagos Islands, which explicitly stated that denial of return amounts to a crime against humanity. He argues that if the legal theory is now deemed flawed, HRW should retract its previous report for consistency. Shakir also offered to reframe the finding based on the crime against humanity of persecution, which he considers 'straightforward,' but this was rejected due to 'advocacy concerns.'

Shakir states, 'Human Rights Watch in the context of the Chos Islands in 2023 set out very clearly that denial of return amounts to a crime against humanity.' He later adds, 'We offered to make edits to address any concerns including to base it on a separate crime against humanity of persecution, which is straightforward... The only argument was the advocacy concerns.' (10:16, 11:56, 12:18).