Image 01 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.


Jewish people and Jewish interest groups are lobbying and voting for more Islamist immigration into Europe and America. Why? I don’t understand. When the west falls so does Israels strongest allies?

    I ran into a similar problem with Leftist support of Sandinistas during Iran-Contra. Some Americans weren’t just practicing a “cruel neutrality” (Althouse) or bending over backwards to play devil’s advocate, or being dispassionately objective. It couldn’t even be defined as ambivalence. Nope, they WANTED America to fail, and were actively sabotaging the nation wherever they could.

    I guess some Jews are that way about Israel too. Some are globalists first, and some believe Israel incites all the terrorist attacks and anti-Semitism worldwide (Israel’s skirt was to short, she was asking for it).

    But I think most of them have just slid into corruption. They are selfish and vain. Holding court with the Martha’s Vineyard set is paramount, and Martha is always condemning Israel’s use of “disproportionate” force.

The Israeli government will take whatever legal action its leftist-controlled courts will allow it to take. I wonder whether blacklisted homeowners would have standing to sue in the US, since AirBNB is a US company.

The basis of such a suit would be that defendant allows listings by Arab homeowners in the village down the road, so the reason it doesn’t allow this one is either the plaintiff’s race (Jewish) or national origin (Israeli).

Of course their response would be that the problem is neither the plaintiff’s race nor national origin but the company’s political view that the plaintiff (and others of his/her race and/or national origin) ought not to be living where s/he does. I.e. race and/or national origin is not the basis for the discrimination, but rather the basis of the company’s political opinion; there’s no doubt that a person (including a corporation) is entitled to form a political view based on race and/or national origin. It would go on to say that that political view is the basis of its decision. But I don’t think this would fly, since it would be the same as arguing “The reason I refuse to sell you any milk is not that you’re black, but that I believe milk is bad for black people”; I don’t think any court would accept such an argument.

Israeli Jews in those areas live in settlements because the regular housing market is not available.

This is not true.

First of all, in the English language as I understand it the word “settlement” means either a small village or a recently established one. While some of the Jewish residents of Judæa, Benjamin, and Samaria do live in small settlements, most of them live in large and well-established villages, in towns, and in cities. Nowhere else in the world is the term “settlement” applied to a city of 50,000 people. And nowhere else in the world does the term carry an implication of illegitimacy.

Second and more important, though, the reason Jewish residents (except in Hevron) live in their own villages, towns, and cities rather than in Arab ones is not because the Arabs refuse to rent or sell to them (though this is true) but because they don’t want to live there, primarily because they know they would not be safe there, and also because they prefer to live with their own people, in modern if sometimes rudimentary conditions.

I stopped following this some time ago (when the donated Green Houses were destroyed). I realized that peace would not come to the Middle East until the Palestinians are eliminated.

I know that’s not a sentiment we are supposed to say out loud, but its the truth. And why not? History is full of monstrous tribes that had to be put down like rabid animals.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | November 19, 2018 at 11:48 pm

    There’s no need to eliminate them; all that is needed for most of them is for them to understand that they have no chance of winning. Once they understand in their bones that they are defeated, they cannot ever win, no matter how long they fight or wait they will never achieve their objective, they will be ready to make peace.

    Unfortunately successive Israeli governments have taught them that Israel is weak, and will crumble under enough pressure. Their violence has already won them a great deal, so why would they stop it? The more it gets them, the more they’re encouraged to believe it will continue to get them if they keep it up. The whole concept of mutual concessions, of give-and-take, of goodwill gestures, makes no sense to them. In their mind one is either weak or strong; they respect strength and despise weakness, and most of the Israel shows them weakness.

    What’s needed is not just new leadership, such as Moshe Feiglin, but the ouster of the current judiciary and legal establishment, with its assumptions that everything is justiciable, that everyone has standing, and that its role is to impose the values of enlightened European liberalism on a Jewish population with savage middle-eastern values.

It’s funny. I don’t actually have an argument with Nilhouse.

International precedent demonstrates that Israel has the right to Jordan. I’m looking at German South West Africa. By treaty and by right of conquest. Find, if you are so inclined, Konigsberg on a map of Europe.

He’s right about the leftist courts. I so wish Israel was unleashed. I so wish Israel would unleash itself. The world would be so much a better place for it.

    MattMusson in reply to Arminius. | November 20, 2018 at 10:13 am

    Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 war. Even after Jordanian air attacks the Israelis wanted to avoid a ground war with Jordan. But, the King of Jordan followed up with a ground attack.

    Jordan picked a fight and lost.

      Arminius in reply to MattMusson. | November 20, 2018 at 11:25 am

      Exactly. The Arabs attacked Israel. It’s why I asked about Konigsberg.

      “Russia’s smallest oblast (region) of Kaliningrad is an exclave located 200 miles away from the border of Russia proper. Kaliningrad was a spoil of World War II, allocated from Germany to the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference that divided Europe between the allied powers in 1945. …”

      The Soviets took Konigsberg and retained it by right of conquest. Now, I dispute the idea that the country that signed a pact to divide up Poland retained that right when the Nazis turned on them. But so be it, it’s the current reality.

      Why are the Joooozzz treated differently? I understand the Israelis agreed to a UN resolution in which they gave up their claim to the land. But why were the

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | November 20, 2018 at 11:29 am

        …they even bothered with the question? We didn’t tell the Soviets to give the Germans Konigsberg back. Since per the Balfour Declaration the Israelis get the whole enchilada, and per international law when you are attacked by a foreign country and win territory you get to keep it, why are we even talking about “occupied territories?”

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | November 20, 2018 at 11:51 am

        “…In 1945 when the UN Charter was created, the territory of the Palestine mandate theoretically included what is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan. But two decades earlier, in 1922, the British, with League of Nations concurrence, had barred Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River and created the emirate of Trans-Jordan, which eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Thus amended, the Palestine mandate designated only the territory west of the Jordan as the Jewish national home: the same territory, further diminished by the UN partition resolution of 1947, that would become the state of Israel when Britain relinquished its responsibilities as mandatory power in 1948…”

        I would argue that Israel gets the territory of trans-Jordan. But let’s say may argument fails. They get everything west of the Jordan, by treaty and by conquest.

        You really can’t talk about Israel being the victim in a war of aggression perpetrated against it. Because the Arabs chose the wrong victim, didn’t they? Oh, boy, didn’t they! But the niceties of international law apply, I’m convinced, regarding Israel and really anyone else. Israel didn’t attack anyone (if you read the Old Testament, they are commanded not to). They were attacked. They gained territory.

        They get to keep it. Simple as that.


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.

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.)

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.

Belay my last.