Airbnb

Key Findings

• Settlements: Airbnb remained listed in the UN OHCHR database in September 2025 under category (e), civilian services supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements; its documented activity is accommodation listings, not construction or security provision.¹
• Economic: Reviews found hundreds of Airbnb listings in West Bank settlements, including listings in outposts unlawful under Israeli domestic law; documented platform presentation has at times labelled settlement properties as located in “Israel.”²
• Political: Airbnb reversed its 2018 plan to remove West Bank settlement listings in 2019, retained the listings, and said it would donate profits from West Bank host activity to humanitarian organisations.³
• Not found: No public evidence identified of Airbnb defence contracting, military supply relationships, Israeli state-security technology provision, surveillance technology deployment, or Project Nimbus participation.⁴

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• Airbnb Ireland UC is identified as an EMEA subsidiary and has been named in settlement-listing-related complaints.⁷
• Airbnb’s 2025 Form 10-K lists significant subsidiaries in Ireland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the United States; none of those listed significant subsidiaries is incorporated in Israel.⁸
• No public evidence identified of an Airbnb corporate office, R&D centre, data centre, warehouse, or disclosed employee headcount in Israel.^{5, 8}

Executive Summary

Airbnb operates a digital marketplace through which hosts offer accommodation. Its documented Israel/Palestine nexus is principally the hosting and presentation of tourist-rental listings in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Airbnb has been included in the UN OHCHR database of businesses involved in specified settlement-related activities since the database’s first publication in 2020 and remained included in the September 2025 update. The listed category is (e), provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport; Airbnb is not listed in the database’s construction-equipment, surveillance, demolition-equipment, or security-services categories.^{1, 9}

The strongest documented economic evidence concerns settlement listings. Human Rights Watch documented 139 Airbnb properties in West Bank settlements in 2018. A Guardian review conducted in August 2024 and reported in February 2025 identified 321 Airbnb properties in West Bank settlements, including 18 in outposts illegal under Israeli law; related reporting counted approximately 350 Airbnb listings among 402 total Airbnb and Booking.com listings in West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem. These counts are snapshots from distinct methodologies and dates, not a verified contemporaneous inventory of all live listings.^{2, 10}

The political dimension is shaped by Airbnb’s policy reversal. In November 2018, Airbnb announced that it would remove roughly 200 listings in West Bank settlements, excluding East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In April 2019, after litigation settlement, it reversed that approach, continued West Bank listings, and stated it would donate profits generated by West Bank host activity to humanitarian organisations. Airbnb maintains that it has never boycotted Israel, Israeli businesses, or its Israeli hosts, and has said that it operates in compliance with applicable laws.^{3, 11}

The record does not establish a military-industrial or Israeli state-security nexus. No public evidence identified of contracts with the IDF, Israeli Ministry of Defence, police, intelligence services, or prisons; defence supply-chain integration; weapons, dual-use, surveillance, or military AI provision; Israeli data-centre operations; or Project Nimbus participation. A third-party “soldiers only” Tel Aviv accommodation listing was documented on the platform, but it was a civilian host listing in Israel proper, not a corporate IDF contract or a listing in occupied territory.^{4, 12}

On the fixed, human-vetted V6.5 assessment, Airbnb receives BRS 583 and Tier C (Substantial Complicity). That result is driven by the evidence-supported settlement-marketplace and policy vectors in Economic and Political, while Military remains low and Digital is zero because the audits did not substantiate a defence or state-security technology relationship.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Airbnb is a US public company founded in San Francisco by Brian Chesky, Joe Gebbia, and Nathan Blecharczyk. It is founder-controlled through a multi-class voting structure. The audited evidence identifies Airbnb Ireland UC as an EMEA subsidiary and a party named in several settlement-listing-related legal complaints, alongside Airbnb Payments UK Ltd in the UK complaint context.^{6, 7}

The company’s audited significant-subsidiary disclosure identifies entities in Ireland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the United States, but not Israel. This document-level evidence does not establish that Airbnb has no smaller entity, branch, VAT registration, local representative, or other presence in Israel; it establishes only that no Israeli entity appeared among the disclosed significant subsidiaries.⁸

The Israeli technology relationship documented by the audits is limited and distinct from internal infrastructure: Guesty, described in retained research as Tel Aviv-based, was an Airbnb 2025 Preferred+ Software Partner for professional hosts. This is an approved API/property-management software relationship for hosts, not evidence that Airbnb procures Guesty technology for its own corporate stack or that Guesty is an Airbnb subsidiary.¹⁶ No public evidence identified of Airbnb’s acquisition of, controlling stake in, or R&D partnership with an Israeli company.

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No verified contract, tender award, framework agreement, memorandum of understanding, or service relationship between Airbnb and the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, Israel Prison Service, Border Police, intelligence services, or other Israeli security bodies was identified. Airbnb is a hospitality marketplace and does not manufacture weapons, munitions, dual-use goods, heavy machinery, infrastructure, or defence-grade products.⁴

The military-adjacent record is contextual rather than contractual. Airbnb’s accommodation platform hosted a third-party operator’s Tel Aviv listings marketed “only for soldiers,” requiring a soldier certificate from IDF personnel or reservists. The finding concerns civilian accommodation offered by a host in Israel proper; it does not establish a corporate Airbnb-IDF agreement, military procurement, or operation in occupied territory.¹²

Settlement accommodation occurs in an environment maintained through Israeli military control. Palestinian ID-holders are reported to be barred from entering settlements by military order, and Airbnb’s OHCHR category reflects civilian services supporting settlement maintenance. The underlying documented activity remains tourist accommodation listings, not direct logistical sustainment of military facilities.^{1, 10}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

Airbnb’s strongest defence in this domain is substantial: no public evidence identified of defence contracting, military procurement, supply-chain integration with Israeli defence primes, weapons production, export licensing, military base services, or security-sector partnership. Airbnb does not appear in the cited AFSC database focused on companies supplying weapons and high-tech military enablers to the IDF, nor in PAX’s report on companies arming Israel and their financiers.⁴

The soldier-only listing is not proof of corporate intent, corporate knowledge, or an IDF relationship. Likewise, the OHCHR classification does not transform platform listings into a military contract; Airbnb is listed under civilian services category (e), not categories concerning equipment, surveillance, demolition, or security services.^{1, 12}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Airbnb, Inc.: No verified Israeli defence or security contract identified.⁴
• IDF / Israeli Ministry of Defence: No verified procurement, service, or partnership record identified.⁴
• Social Space: Third-party operator associated with Tel Aviv listings marketed for soldiers; not established as an Airbnb corporate partner.¹²
• UN OHCHR: Lists Airbnb under civilian settlement-supporting services category (e).¹

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified that Airbnb deploys Israeli-origin facial recognition, biometric identification, predictive policing, workforce surveillance, offensive cyber tools, AI targeting systems, or surveillance technologies. No public evidence identified of Airbnb technology provision, data sharing, or service agreements with Israeli defence, intelligence, police, or security bodies.^{5, 17}

Airbnb’s identified technology vendors include GBG for identity and address verification. Airbnb’s 2025 disclosures state that third parties provide operational services such as data storage and processing, trust and safety, infrastructure, source-code management, and testing/deployment, but do not identify the providers or processing locations. The audits found no public evidence in reviewed sources that Airbnb’s internal stack uses the named Israeli cybersecurity, identity, or fraud-technology vendors considered in the audit.^{5, 17}

The record does document Airbnb platform outputs: settlement listings have sometimes been geographically presented as located in “Israel.” This supports a finding about platform presentation and geographic attribution, but does not identify an internal algorithm, geocoding provider, or Israeli technology vendor responsible.^{2, 10}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The available record supports no digital-security nexus. No public evidence identified that Airbnb operates data centres in Israel, uses the AWS Israel region for customer data, participates in Project Nimbus, holds Israeli government-cloud contracts, or supplies sovereign-cloud or resilience services to Israeli state entities.^{5, 17}

Guesty’s Preferred+ status establishes a host-software/API ecosystem relationship, not acquisition, ownership, internal procurement, state-security use, or an Israeli government technology contract. The absence findings are evidence-status conclusions from reviewed sources, not proof that no undisclosed vendor relationship could exist.¹⁶

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• GBG: Identified identity and address-verification provider; not Israeli-domiciled in the audit record.¹⁷
• Guesty: Tel Aviv-based host-software partner in Airbnb’s Preferred+ programme; not an Airbnb subsidiary or established internal-stack provider.¹⁶
• Airbnb Limited LLC: Identified as controller for certain Israel/Palestinian Territories accommodation activity from April 2026; this does not establish data-storage location.¹⁸

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

Airbnb’s principal documented economic nexus is its host network and booking platform for properties in settlements. Human Rights Watch documented 139 Airbnb properties in West Bank settlements in 2018. Who Profits documented listings across West Bank settlements, East Jerusalem settlement neighbourhoods, and Golan Heights settlements. The Guardian’s August 2024 review reported 321 Airbnb properties in West Bank settlements, including 18 in outposts illegal under Israeli law.^{2, 10, 19}

The audits also document geographic presentation concerns. HRW, Who Profits, Al-Haq, and the Guardian review reported settlement properties labelled generically as located in “Israel,” rather than identified as occupied or settlement territory. These are documented observations of listings and presentation, not a verified count of every such listing at every point in time.^{2, 10, 19}

Airbnb’s Head of Global Policy and Public Affairs stated in 2019 that the company had invested more than $20 million in Israeli operations over the preceding five years and referenced more than 20,000 Israeli hosts. The audits found no public evidence of an Airbnb-operated Israeli R&D facility, Israeli corporate office, Israeli acquisition, Israeli sovereign-debt holding, or controlling stake in an Israeli operating company.²⁰

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

Airbnb’s central counter-argument is that, since 2019, it takes no profits from West Bank host activity and donates an equivalent amount to humanitarian organisations under its disputed-territories framework. It says that it has never boycotted Israel or Israeli businesses and operates in compliance with applicable laws.^{3, 21}

That position is relevant mitigation but not a divestment: the 2019 reversal retained the listings. Civil-society organisations dispute whether donation of profits remedies the underlying activity and have characterised the approach as inadequate or “humanitarian-washing.” Those are advocacy characterisations, not adjudicated findings.^{15, 21}

The audit does not establish settlement-specific revenue, profits, donation amounts, recipients in every instance, or a current complete list of active listings. Airbnb is a platform rather than a physical-goods importer, so conventional supply-chain and customs-labelling concepts have limited fit.^{19, 21}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Airbnb hosts in settlements: Core economic nexus; the platform’s listing network is documented across the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights.¹⁹
• UN OHCHR: Continues to list Airbnb under civilian services supporting settlement maintenance and existence.¹
• Airbnb Ireland UC: EMEA entity named in several complaints; allegations remain unresolved unless otherwise stated.^{7, 14}
• Guesty: Independent Israeli property-management company used by some hosts; not established as an Airbnb subsidiary or formal sourcing partner.¹⁶

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

Airbnb’s political nexus arises most directly from policy choices around settlement listings and public positioning. In 2018, the company announced a limited West Bank delisting; in 2019, it reversed that policy, kept the listings, and adopted its profit-donation framework. Its prior policy leader stated that Airbnb was “categorically opposed” to BDS and committed to its presence in Israel; Airbnb later said it had never boycotted Israel, Israeli businesses, or Israeli hosts.^{3, 11}

The company’s settlement-listing policy generated public state-level reactions. Israeli officials lobbied against the 2018 delisting, including calls for US anti-BDS laws to be invoked. Texas placed Airbnb on its anti-BDS blacklist in March 2019 and removed it after the company reversed its policy; Illinois and Florida also took anti-boycott-related actions or steps in response to the announced delisting.²²

The audits document litigation and complaint activity, not findings of wrongdoing. The Irish High Court’s October 2025 ruling required Garda reconsideration of an earlier refusal to investigate a criminal complaint; it did not find Airbnb liable. OECD-NCP, UK National Crime Agency, French, and US-related complaints and proceedings similarly remain allegations or unresolved leads to the extent stated in the audit record.^{7, 14}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

Airbnb’s strongest political defence is that its disputed-territories framework is intended as a globally applicable policy, with similar treatment said to extend to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It argues it operates lawfully and has donated West Bank booking profits since 2019. Its 2018 decision also attracted support from J Street, which publicly criticised attacks on the company over the delisting proposal.^{3, 23}

No public evidence identified that Airbnb’s federal lobbying or PAC spending specifically targeted Israel/Palestine legislation. No public evidence identified of direct corporate donations to Israeli military-welfare, settlement, or named pro-settlement organisations; nor were Israel/Palestine-specific entries identified in Airbnb Ireland UC’s lobbying-register record.²⁴

The audit records an October 2023 employee message condemning Hamas attacks and activating a penalty-free cancellation policy. No public evidence identified of a comparable public statement addressing Palestinian civilian casualties, the ICJ advisory opinion, or ICC arrest warrants. The comparison with Airbnb’s more extensive Ukraine response is a documented difference in public and operational response, but does not by itself establish intent or legal liability.²⁵

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Chris Lehane: Former policy leader associated with Airbnb’s anti-BDS and Israel-presence statements.¹¹
• Dave Stephenson: CFO and Head of Employee Experience who issued Airbnb’s October 2023 employee message.²⁵
• Garda National Economic Crime Bureau / Irish High Court: Complaint and reconsideration process; no merits finding against Airbnb.¹⁴
• Texas, Illinois, and Florida authorities: Anti-BDS-related state actions responding to the 2018 policy episode.²²

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5.

• V_MAX: 6.50 Avg_OTHERS: 2.46
• BRS Score: 583 Tier: C (Substantial Complicity)

V_MAX is 6.50 because the strongest vetted evidence concerns Airbnb’s continuing settlement-listing marketplace activity and the policy decisions that retained it. The Tier C result reflects those direct economic and political vectors, while the low military score and zero digital score preserve the audits’ affirmative absence findings.

The V6.5 method is scale-free and evidence-only: it assesses documented activity type, scale, and directness rather than imputing liability from association, allegation, ownership, or sector alone. Scores are fixed human-vetted results and are not findings of legal responsibility.

Methodology Note

• Evidence is limited to the four supplied domain audits and their cited source record; claims not supported there are excluded or qualified.
• Impact (I) assesses the documented activity type, M assesses documented scale, and P assesses directness of the nexus.
• The assessment is scale-free: a company is not scored through general reputational association, third-party conduct, or transitive ownership alone.
• Divested, exited, or discontinued operations mitigate findings; Airbnb’s 2019 policy was a reversal rather than an exit because the company retained West Bank listings.³
• Entity attribution is specific: a third-party host, an API software partner, or a complaint against a subsidiary is not treated as proof of a corporate defence, security, or technology relationship.^{12, 16}
• Settlement operation is assessed in both Economic and Political because it combines marketplace activity with policy and public-positioning choices; “No public evidence identified” is used where the audits’ checks found no substantiating record.