Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Airbnb to boycott Jews living in the ‘West Bank’

    Airbnb to boycott Jews living in the ‘West Bank’

    Airbnb is complicit in a culture of Jew hatred promoted by the BDS movement.

    Airbnb has been under a sustained pressure campaign by anti-Israeli activist groups to cease listing homes and apartments for rent in Israeli Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”).

    The area was ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Jordanians after Jordan captured the area in Israel’s War of Independence. The 1949 Armistice Line was where the fighting stopped, and left many historically Jewish areas, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, in Jordanian hands. Israel recaptured the area in 1967.

    Israeli Jews in those areas live in settlements because the regular housing market is not available. Palestinians are forbidden by the Palestinian Authority and terrorist groups, often under threat of death, from selling or renting to Jews. And given the long history of violence, including stabbings and shootings, directed towards Jews in those areas, it would be too dangerous.

    The West Bank is disputed territory. For a history of why the settlements are not illegal and the area is not illegally occupied, see our prior posts.

    The campaign against Airbnb was led by groups like the extremist U.S. Campaign for Palestinian rights, the misleadingly named “Jewish Voice for Peace,” and Code Pink. The obsessive-compulsive anti-Zionist Ariel Gold of Code Pink even disrupted Airbnb meetings.

    The anti-Israel Human Rights Watch, which is leading a UN effort to blacklist companies doing business in the West Bank, was about to come out with a report slamming Airbnb, according to an HRW executive.

    Airbnb has capitulated. It will boycott Jews living in the West Bank. While it couches its language referring to “settlements,’ that is just another way of saying Jews because Jews only can live in “settlements” in the West Bank.

    Here is part of the announcement on Airbnb’s website:

    Listings in Disputed Regions

    There are conflicting views regarding whether companies should be doing business in the occupied territories that are the subject of historical disputes between Israelis and Palestinians.

    US law permits companies like Airbnb to engage in business in these territories. At the same time, many in the global community have stated that companies should not do business here because they believe companies should not profit on lands where people have been displaced. Others believe that companies should not withdraw business operations from these areas.

    For us, the question centers on the approximately 200 Airbnb listings in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and whether they should be available for rent on our platform. We are most certainly not the experts when it comes to the historical disputes in this region. Our team has wrestled with this issue and we have struggled to come up with the right approach.

    In the past, we made clear that we would operate in this area as allowed by law. We did this because we believe that people-to-people travel has considerable value and we want to help bring people together in as many places as possible around the world. We also explained that going forward we would ask questions, listen to experts, seek out our community for their thoughts, and continue to learn.

    Since then, we spent considerable time speaking to various experts — including those who have criticized our previous approach — about this matter. As a global platform operating in 191 countries and regions and more than 81,000 cities, we must consider the impact we have and act responsibly. Accordingly, we have developed a framework for evaluating how we should treat listings in occupied territories. When evaluating these types of situations, we will:

    1. Recognize that each situation is unique and requires a case-by-case approach.
    2. Consult with a range of experts and our community of stakeholders.
    3. Assess any potential safety risks for our hosts and guests.
    4. Evaluate whether the existence of listings is contributing to existing human suffering.
    5. Determine whether the existence of listings in the occupied territory has a direct connection to the larger dispute in the region.

    When we applied our decision-making framework, we concluded that we should remove listings in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank that are at the core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.

    This policy on disputed territories raises several questions about why Jews are being singled out. For example, you can rent through Airbnb in occupied Tibet.

    And in occupied Northern Cyprus.

    And in occupied Western Sahara:

    It’s pretty clear that when Airbnb says “disputed territories,” what is means is “disputed territories” controlled by Jews.

    I emailed Airbnb’s press office the following questions:

    With regard to the announcement regarding Israeli Settlements, , please respond to the following questions:

    1. Are only Jewish homes in West Bank subject to this ban, or does it include non-Jewish (Palestinian) homes in the West Bank?

    2. Does it cover the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, or any part of “East” Jerusalem?

    3. Can you name any other area that is subject to ban under your disputed territories policy other than Jewish homes in the West Bank?

    I also tweeted these questions to the co-founders of Airbnb:

    As of this writing, I have received no response.

    Airbnb has joined the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. It matters little that it is limited to Israeli settlements. It is being touted as a great BDS victory because it does damage to Jews.

    Airbnb is complicit in a culture of Jew hatred promoted by the BDS movement.

    I hope Israeli kicks it out of the country completely.

    [FeaturedImage: Airbnb Founders and senior executives, Brian Chesky, Joe Gebbia, and Nate Blecharczyk, via Airbnb website]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Arminius | November 20, 2018 at 4:40 am


    Arminius | November 20, 2018 at 4:47 am

    Why do the Joooozz get treated differently. And, no, I’m not misspelling things out of hate. The Joooozz are God’s chosen not because, racism. But they were slaves in Egypt. And God chose them to prove his greatness. He could make the least, mighty.

    Change my mind.

    Milhouse | November 20, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    If you want a serious answer about the international law, the argument made against Israel’s right to the territories it gained in ’67 is that the UN Charter made the acquisition of territory by means of war illegal. I cannot undertake to put my finger on the precise language by which it does so (in other words I think they’re making it up) but this is the argument. The right of conquest was abolished, and since then war cannot change any international border. It makes no difference whether it was a war of aggression or of defense; the only way to change a border is now by treaty. This is why nobody (except the UK and Pakistan) recognized Transjordan’s annexation of Judæa, Benjamin, Samaria, and the eastern part of Jerusalem; though they did recognize the name change which reflected that annexation. Potsdam was before the UN Charter so it was OK. (How convenient. Similarly the Geneva Conventions banned forced population transfers conveniently right after the Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe. Funny how things work out like that, just by chance.)

    To which I say, first show me the language in the UN Charter saying so. I can see where it bans wars of aggression, but in ’67 Israel was defending itself. Second, show me that this has been honored by other countries. Which country, other than Israel, has captured territory it would like, in a defensive war, and then voluntarily given it back? International law is descriptive, not prescriptive; it’s what countries do, not what some book says they ought to. So if nobody else keeps this alleged “law” then it isn’t one.

    Third, according to everyone but the UK and Pakistan the territories taken from Jordan in ’67 did not belong to it. Nor did they belong to any other nation; the “green line” was not an international border. So how is this principle relevant? Israel is at least a legitimate claimant of this territory, so once it fell into its hands why should it not assert that claim, if it ever decides to do so? (This would be a stronger argument if Israel had annexed these territories, but it deliberately chose to annex only Jerusalem, Latrun, and the Golan Heights; Israeli law, not the UN, says the rest of the territories are not part of Israel.)

    Arminius | November 20, 2018 at 4:45 pm

    So, if Israel is legitimate claimant, does that not remove Israel from the level of occupying power to disputed territory?

      Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | November 20, 2018 at 8:17 pm

      Yes, that is precisely Israel’s position. It is not an occupying power, and is therefore not bound by the Geneva Conventions, but it chooses to abide by them anyway as if they applied. Since ’67 you will never find an Israeli government reference to “occupied territories”; they’re consistently called “administered territories”. There’s a difference. Israel’s position is that these territories are not part of any sovereign state, and although it has a legitimate claim to them it chooses not to exercise that claim. The Defense Department administers them under Jordanian law until such time as their status is resolved.

    Arminius | November 20, 2018 at 4:54 pm

    Belay my last.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend