- Airbnb's primary complicity concern centers on its sustained facilitation of settlement-based tourism in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights through its platform-mediated transactional model, earning recurring service-fee revenue from listings widely deemed illegal under international law. - The company's 2018 decision to remove approximately 200 West Bank settlement listings was fully reversed within five months, with all listings reinstated alongside a pledge to donate net revenues to humanitarian organizations — a reversal that has defined its settlement policy posture ever since. - Airbnb remains listed in the UN OHCHR database of businesses with settlement-linked activities as of the September 2025 update, and a February 2025 Guardian investigation confirmed settlement listings remain active with no consistent geographic distinction between Israel-proper and occupied-territory properties. - A documented asymmetry exists between Airbnb's response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict — which prompted a full operational suspension and refugee housing pledges — and its response to the Gaza conflict, where no equivalent operational action was taken. - Airbnb's dual-class share structure concentrates effective governance control with its founding team, insulating the company from institutional shareholder pressure to alter its settlement-listing practices.
Table of Contents
Airbnb, Inc. is a publicly traded consumer internet company whose principal assessed exposure under the BDS-1000 framework arises not from defence contracting, technology provision to the Israeli state, or political lobbying, but from a single sustained commercial posture: the continued operation of its short-term rental marketplace in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank — a market decision taken deliberately at the CEO level following a brief and ultimately reversed removal policy in 2018–2019.
The forensic record is unusually clear on what Airbnb does and does not do. It does not manufacture products, supply military equipment, sell technology to the Israeli government, or integrate into any defence prime’s supply chain. V-MIL scores zero with high confidence across all criteria. The V-DIG score is structurally constrained by the rubric’s Directionality Rule: Airbnb is a consumer-services operator in Israel, not a technology vendor to Israel, and no verified relationship with Israeli-origin enterprise security, surveillance, or AI vendors has been established.
The substantive findings concentrate in two domains. V-ECON captures the direct, recurring service-fee revenue Airbnb collects from settlement-area bookings — a relationship that has continued uninterrupted since April 2019 and was confirmed still active by The Guardian‘s February 2025 investigation.1 V-POL captures the governance dimension: CEO Brian Chesky personally authored all key policy statements; the dual-class share structure concentrates decision-making in the founding team; and the company’s activist operational response to Russia’s Ukraine invasion — suspension within days, a personal CEO pledge of 100,000 refugee housing units — contrasts sharply with the absence of any equivalent operational measure following the October 2023 Gaza conflict.2
The composite BDS-1000 score of 261 (Tier D) reflects a company occupying a narrow but well-evidenced position: a consumer marketplace generating settlement-linked revenue through a deliberately maintained commercial policy, with a documented asymmetry in how its stated values are applied across geopolitical contexts, but without the military supply, state technology provision, or active political advocacy that would drive a materially higher score.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Airbnb acquires Trooly (US-based trust-scoring company); no Israeli R&D nexus confirmed 3 |
| November 2018 | Airbnb announces removal of ~200 West Bank settlement listings, citing humanitarian concerns and international law 4 |
| November 2018 | Human Rights Watch publishes “Bed and Breakfast on Stolen Land,” documenting settlement listings and revenue flows 5 |
| November 2018 | Texas adds Airbnb to anti-BDS scrutinised companies list following delisting announcement 6 |
| January 2019 | Amnesty International publishes “Destination: Occupation,” naming Airbnb alongside Booking.com, Expedia, and TripAdvisor 7 |
| 2019 | Silber v. Airbnb filed (initially District of Delaware; also Northern District of Illinois proceedings noted), alleging discriminatory targeting of Jewish West Bank hosts 8 |
| April 2019 | Airbnb reverses delisting decision; reinstates all West Bank settlement listings; commits to donating net revenues from those listings to humanitarian organisations 9 |
| April 2019 | Texas removes Airbnb from anti-BDS scrutinised companies list following reinstatement 6 |
| February 2020 | UN OHCHR publishes database of 112 business enterprises with settlement-linked activities (A/HRC/43/71); Airbnb included 10 |
| March 2022 | Russia invades Ukraine; Airbnb suspends all Russia and Belarus operations within days and pledges 100,000 free refugee housing units 2 |
| June 2023 | OHCHR updates settlement database; Airbnb remains listed 10 |
| October 2023 | Hamas attack on Israel; CEO Brian Chesky posts statement referencing ADL partnership; no operational suspension or equivalent refugee pledge for Gaza 11 |
| June 2023 | AWS launches il-central-1 Israel/Tel Aviv region; no Airbnb workload disclosure confirmed 12 |
| February 2025 | The Guardian investigation confirms West Bank settlement listings remain active on Airbnb; search interface does not consistently distinguish settlements from Israel proper 1 |
| Early 2025 | Joe Gebbia departs Airbnb.org board following controversy over association with DOGE initiative 13 |
| 2025 | Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) expands exclusion list to encompass OHCHR database companies, including Airbnb 14 |
| September 2025 | OHCHR publishes updated settlement database; Airbnb remains listed 10 |
Airbnb, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated, NASDAQ-listed (ABNB) consumer internet company headquartered in San Francisco. Founded in 2008 by Brian Chesky, Nathan Blecharczyk, and Joe Gebbia, it operates an asset-light online marketplace connecting hosts who list short-term rental properties with guests who book them. The company completed its initial public offering in December 2020, raising approximately $3.5 billion in gross proceeds.15 It operates in over 220 countries and regions and reports no physical hospitality infrastructure of its own.16
Airbnb’s revenue model is bilateral: it charges a service fee to hosts (approximately 3% of the booking subtotal) and to guests (typically up to 14.2%, varying by booking value and geography). For every completed booking — including bookings of properties in Israeli settlements — Airbnb collects fees on both sides of the transaction.16
The company’s governance structure is dual-class. Class A shares (publicly traded) carry one vote per share; Class B shares, held principally by the three co-founders and certain early investors, carry 20 votes per share. This structure concentrates effective voting control with the founding team, insulating corporate strategy from public shareholder pressure on issues such as settlement-listings policy.15
European operations are conducted through Airbnb Ireland UC, an unlimited company incorporated in Ireland and registered with the Irish Companies Registration Office. This entity is the direct contracting party for all users based outside the United States and China, including Israeli and Palestinian hosts and guests.17 Airbnb’s Irish domicile for European operations places it squarely within the jurisdiction of EU regulatory frameworks, including the Digital Services Act and GDPR. An Israeli operational subsidiary — reportedly Airbnb Israel Technologies Ltd. — is understood to exist, though its formal registry details have not been publicly verified.
Airbnb.org is a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliated with but legally distinct from Airbnb, Inc. It supports emergency housing programmes for refugees, disaster evacuees, and frontline healthcare workers, and has been operationalised for high-profile humanitarian pledges — most visibly the 100,000 Ukrainian refugee housing initiative in March 2022.2 The nonprofit structure creates a reputational asset that amplifies the contrast when equivalent measures are not deployed in other conflict contexts.
Airbnb has no identified mechanism of involvement in the military and defence supply chain domain. The company does not hold, and has never held, any defence contract, procurement agreement, or vendor registration with any national defence ministry — including the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the US Department of Defense, or any NATO procurement body. It does not appear in the Israeli SIBAT vendor directory, the US System for Award Management (SAM.gov) defence awards registry, or any equivalent procurement database reviewed for this audit. Its annual SEC filings contain no disclosure of defence-related revenue, contracts, or material relationships with government defence customers.18
The rubric’s I-MIL criteria address direct military contracting, dual-use product supply, construction and infrastructure for military or settlement purposes, supply-chain integration with defence primes, logistical sustainment and base services, and munitions and weapons systems. Airbnb’s business model — an online hospitality marketplace — does not intersect with any of these categories. The company manufactures no products; it provides no engineering services; it supplies no equipment to any armed force. Its core technology — a booking platform, payment-processing layer, and host-management toolset — is a consumer-internet product with no documented tactical, intelligence-collection, surveillance, or weapons-integration application.18
On dual-use technology: no patent filings, licensing agreements, or product disclosures reviewed for this audit describe military or intelligence end-use. Airbnb is not classified as a defence-related entity under Israeli export-control law (Export Control Law 5766-2007) or US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and no ITAR/USML registration for Airbnb appears in the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls public records.19
On construction and heavy machinery: Airbnb’s asset-light model means it owns no physical hospitality infrastructure. The documented involvement of Airbnb in occupied territories — extensively reviewed in civil society scrutiny sections across all four audits — relates solely to the facilitation of short-term rental tourism in existing structures, not to the financing, construction, or supply of physical settlement infrastructure. No UN Special Rapporteur report, NGO investigation, or news article reviewed identifies Airbnb as a supplier of construction equipment, prefabricated structures, or civil-engineering services to any military base or settlement development project.20
On supply-chain integration with defence primes: Airbnb’s disclosed supplier relationships are limited to cloud infrastructure providers (principally Amazon Web Services), payment-processing networks, software licensors, and marketing-technology vendors. No relationship with Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, BAE Systems, Raytheon Technologies, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman — or their Tier-2 subcontractors — has been identified in any source reviewed.18
On logistical sustainment and base services: two secondary claims were evaluated and excluded. First, an individual listing described as “Gordon 2 — soldiers only” was asserted by prior research as evidence of corporate IDF billeting. The available evidence is consistent with a private host independently restricting their listing to a particular guest category — a host-side commercial decision not attributable to Airbnb as a corporate actor. No Airbnb corporate communications, investor disclosures, or press releases describe any programme to accommodate active military personnel as a company-level service. Second, a claim that Airbnb.org’s Open Homes programme was extended post-October 2023 to house IDF reservists could not be independently verified; Airbnb.org’s published eligibility criteria cover refugees, disaster evacuees, and frontline healthcare workers, with no confirmed addition of IDF reservist housing.21 Both claims are excluded as unverified and are not treated as established fact.
On munitions and weapons systems: no evidence appears across SEC filings, export-control databases, defence-industry directories, NGO investigations, or news reporting that Airbnb has any involvement in the design, manufacture, assembly, maintenance, financing, or distribution of munitions, weapons systems, missile programmes, naval platforms, armoured vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, or any other strategic defence platform.19
The most plausible counter-argument is that the “Gordon 2 — soldiers only” listing and the alleged Airbnb.org IDF reservist housing programme represent a corporate military accommodation function that has not been publicly disclosed. The auditor’s exclusion of these claims rests on an absence of primary-source confirmation rather than positive evidence of their falsity. If primary-source documentation of a corporate-level IDF accommodation programme were identified — through an Airbnb press release, a verified whistleblower account, or a government contract disclosure — that would reopen the logistical sustainment criterion. However, without such a source, the rubric requires that unverified claims be excluded.
A second counter-argument concerns indirect military benefit: Airbnb’s settlement-tourism facilitation generates economic activity in settlements that may indirectly benefit settlement-security infrastructure (settler security costs are partly subsidised by the Israeli state). This is a plausible second-order causal chain, but it is an indirect economic effect, not a V-MIL supply relationship, and the audits’ domain discipline requires that it be assessed under V-ECON, not V-MIL.
The principal evidence gap is the absence of access to classified procurement databases. It is possible, in principle, that Airbnb holds a low-value or ancillary contract with a defence-adjacent body (for example, providing accommodations software to a military-adjacent entity under a larger government digital-services framework) that does not appear in publicly accessible procurement records. This possibility cannot be ruled out but cannot be substantiated from the available evidence base.
| Entity | Type | Role in V-MIL Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Airbnb, Inc. | Target company | No V-MIL nexus identified |
| Israeli Ministry of Defence (IMOD) / SIBAT | Government / procurement body | No Airbnb vendor registration identified |
| US Department of Defense / SAM.gov | Government / procurement body | No Airbnb defence award identified |
| Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) | US regulatory body | No Airbnb ITAR/USML registration identified |
| Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) / OFAC | US regulatory bodies | No Airbnb denial order or SDN listing identified |
| Elbit Systems, Rafael, IAI, BAE, Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop | Defence primes | No Airbnb supply-chain integration identified |
| Airbnb.org | Affiliated nonprofit | Open Homes programme; IDF reservist housing claim unverified |
| Amazon Web Services (AWS) | Cloud infrastructure vendor | Airbnb’s primary cloud provider; no defence-prime nexus |
| Payoneer Global Inc. | Payments platform | Used for host disbursements; commercial relationship only |
Airbnb’s V-DIG score reflects its posture as a consumer digital marketplace operator in Israel and the occupied territories, not as a technology vendor selling products or services to Israeli state, military, or intelligence bodies. This distinction — codified in the rubric’s Directionality Rule and Customer Cap — is the governing analytical principle for this domain and constrains the Impact band to the consumer-services range (2.1–3.0) regardless of any other factors.
Airbnb’s core technology stack is a consumer-internet booking platform with no documented tactical, intelligence-collection, surveillance, or weapons-integration application. The company’s SEC filings describe a cloud-native architecture dependent primarily on Amazon Web Services as primary cloud infrastructure provider.18 Airbnb’s engineering blog documents extensive AWS dependency — S3, EC2, RDS, Spark-on-AWS — consistent with a deep commercial relationship with a single cloud provider.22 None of these relationships constitutes provision of technology to the Israeli state.
On Israeli-origin enterprise software: the most extensively evaluated potential V-DIG nexus was a claim that Airbnb uses Check Point Software’s email security infrastructure — based on protect.checkpoint.com URL wrappers appearing in forwarded Airbnb confirmation emails. The audit correctly excluded this claim as methodologically unsound: URL-rewriting wrappers of this kind are applied by the recipient organisation’s corporate email gateway at the point of delivery, not by the originating sender. The presence of such a wrapper in a forwarded email reflects the recipient’s IT environment, not Airbnb’s outbound mail infrastructure. No other verified Check Point, Wiz, SentinelOne, CyberArk, NICE, Verint, Claroty, or Palo Alto Networks deployment within Airbnb’s own infrastructure has been identified.18
On identity verification and biometrics: Airbnb operates a host and guest identity-verification programme using third-party ID-verification providers. The Israeli-origin company Au10tix operates in this sector and serves travel and platform-economy clients, but no Airbnb-specific contract disclosure for Au10tix has been located in the verified public record. Au10tix’s status as an Airbnb partner has been explicitly excluded from this audit as unverified. Airbnb’s 2017 acquisition of Trooly — a US-domiciled trust-scoring company founded by Indian-origin entrepreneurs with Google and Bain backgrounds — is confirmed; no Israeli intelligence tradecraft lineage for Trooly has been established.3
On cloud infrastructure and sovereign participation: AWS launched its il-central-1 (Israel/Tel Aviv) region on 1 August 2023.12 As a major AWS commercial customer, Airbnb would have technical access to this region, but no public disclosure confirms or excludes its use for any Airbnb workload. Critically, Airbnb is not a Project Nimbus contractor. Project Nimbus is a ~USD 1.2 billion cloud-infrastructure contract awarded to Google Cloud and AWS as prime contractors by the Israeli government; Airbnb is a downstream commercial consumer of cloud services and plays no role as a cloud infrastructure provider to any government.23 The Project Nimbus nexus is inapplicable to Airbnb.
On AI and algorithmic systems: Airbnb applies AI/ML internally for pricing optimisation (Smart Pricing), search ranking, demand forecasting, fraud detection, and trust-scoring. None of these internal systems is offered as a product or service to government or third-party institutional customers. No training-data licensing arrangements, joint model-development agreements, or AI research partnerships with Israeli government agencies, state-affiliated research institutions (Technion, Hebrew University, Weizmann Institute), or Israeli defence-technology companies have been identified.18
On Israeli R&D presence: Airbnb’s FY2023 Form 10-K does not disclose a dedicated R&D centre, engineering office, or innovation laboratory in Israel. No formally announced Airbnb Israel engineering entity, subsidiary registration, or office opening exists in the verified public record. This question remains open — the Israeli Companies Registrar and Israeli technology press represent the remediation path — but absence of disclosure in SEC filings is a material negative indicator given the company’s disclosure obligations.18
The civil-society scrutiny record in V-DIG mirrors the V-ECON and V-POL records: sustained, multi-source documentation of settlement-listing facilitation, with the February 2025 Guardian investigation confirming ongoing settlement listings as the primary concern.1 The V-DIG relevance of this record is that Airbnb’s digital platform is the mechanism through which settlement-linked bookings are enabled and processed — search, discovery, booking, payment, and review all occur through Airbnb’s digital infrastructure. The platform’s search interface has been specifically criticised for failing to distinguish consistently between listings in Israel proper and listings in the occupied West Bank, making it architecturally difficult for users to make informed choices.1
The primary counter-argument is that if verified Israeli-origin enterprise security software deployment within Airbnb’s infrastructure were established — for example, a confirmed Check Point or CyberArk deployment — the I-DIG band would shift from 2.1–3.0 to 3.1–3.9 (indirect beneficial economic activity), and the V-DIG score would increase modestly. The audit’s exclusion of the Check Point email-wrapper claim is methodologically sound, but the question of Airbnb’s enterprise security stack remains genuinely open; Airbnb does not publicly disclose vendor-level details of its security tooling.
A second counter-argument concerns the AWS il-central-1 region: if Airbnb routes Israeli-market workloads — including host and guest data, booking records, and payment processing — through the Tel Aviv AWS region, this would represent data localisation within Israeli jurisdiction and potentially bring Airbnb into scope for Israeli data-access requirements under the Israeli Privacy Protection Law. No evidence confirming or excluding this has been identified, which is a genuine gap in the evidence base.
The Guesty integration represents a third open question. Guesty is an Israeli-founded property management software company that integrates with Airbnb via its public API. The distinction between a formal Airbnb–Guesty commercial/API partner agreement (which would be a direct Israeli-origin vendor relationship) and hosts independently using Guesty via the open API (which would not) has not been resolved in the public record. If the former were confirmed, I-DIG would move toward Band 3.1–3.9.
| Entity | Type | Role in V-DIG Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Airbnb, Inc. | Target company | Consumer platform operator in Israel and settlement areas |
| Amazon Web Services (AWS) | Cloud provider | Primary cloud infrastructure; il-central-1 region access unconfirmed |
AWS il-central-1 (Israel/Tel Aviv) |
Cloud region | Available to Airbnb commercially; no confirmed Airbnb workload disclosure |
| Project Nimbus | Israeli government cloud contract | AWS/Google prime contractors; Airbnb is not a contractor |
| Check Point Software | Israeli-origin security vendor | Email-wrapper claim excluded as methodologically unsound |
| Au10tix | Israeli-origin ID verification vendor | Airbnb partnership unverified; excluded |
| Guesty | Israeli-founded PMS software | Integrates via Airbnb public API; formal partner status unresolved |
| Trooly | US-domiciled trust-scoring company | Acquired by Airbnb 2017; no Israeli nexus confirmed |
| Human Rights Watch | NGO | November 2018 settlement-listings investigation |
| Amnesty International | NGO | “Destination: Occupation,” January 2019 |
| UN OHCHR | UN body | Settlement database; Airbnb listed from February 2020 |
| The Guardian | News organisation | February 2025 investigation confirming ongoing settlement listings |
Airbnb’s V-ECON score is the highest-weighted contributor to the composite BDS-1000 score, and the forensic basis for this assessment is the most thoroughly documented of any domain. The mechanism of involvement is direct: Airbnb operates a bilateral fee-charging marketplace that processes bookings of Israeli settlement properties, collecting service fees from both settlement-based hosts (approximately 3% of the booking subtotal) and guests (up to 14.2%) on every completed transaction. Settlement-linked bookings generate revenue that flows from the Israeli market through Airbnb Ireland UC (for European-origin bookings) or Airbnb, Inc. (for US-origin bookings) — not to an intermediary or partner, but directly to Airbnb itself.16
The underlying supply-chain analogue for an asset-light platform is the relationship between the company and the hosts who list properties. In the occupied-territory context, the operative question is whether Airbnb has sourced and monetised listings on properties located in Israeli settlements in the West Bank — territory that the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, and the UN Human Rights Council have characterised as illegally occupied. Human Rights Watch documented as early as November 2018 that Airbnb was listing properties in settlements identified by the UN as built on privately owned Palestinian land.5 The OHCHR database, published in February 2020 pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution 31/36, formally identified Airbnb among 112 business enterprises with settlement-linked commercial activities.10 The database has been updated twice since — in June 2023 and September 2025 — and Airbnb remains listed in both updates.10
The 2018–2019 policy arc is central to the V-ECON assessment. In November 2018, Airbnb announced removal of approximately 200 West Bank settlement listings, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.4 The reversal came in April 2019 following the Silber v. Airbnb litigation and legal challenges in Israeli courts: all settlement listings were reinstated, and Airbnb committed to donating net revenues from those listings to humanitarian organisations.9 This reversal was not a drift back into prior practice — it was an explicit, board-approved commercial decision to continue generating service-fee revenue from settlement bookings, accompanied by a charitable-offset mechanism whose fulfilment has never been independently verified. The Who Profits Research Center and Al-Haq have both documented that the charitable-donation commitment does not neutralise the platform’s role in generating economic activity within settlements or the revenue flows to settlement-based hosts.2425
The Guardian‘s February 2025 investigation confirmed that the post-2019 status remains unchanged: settlement properties are bookable on the Airbnb platform, the search interface does not consistently distinguish between listings in Israel proper and in the occupied West Bank, and Airbnb continues to collect fees from settlement-area bookings.1 This represents a minimum documented period of uninterrupted settlement-linked revenue generation from April 2019 to February 2025 — approximately six years of continuous operation.
The I-ECON rubric’s Band 3.1–3.9 (Sustained Trade) is the appropriate assignment. The band explicitly encompasses recurring transactional revenue relationships in a foreign market without deeper capital investment. Airbnb has not established a confirmed R&D centre in Israel, has not acquired an Israeli-domiciled company, and has not made foreign direct investment into the Israeli or settlement economy in any form identifiable in public sources. Its relationship is transactional: it extracts service-fee revenue from the Israeli and settlement hospitality economy without investing capital into it. The magnitude assessment (Band 6.1–6.9) reflects multi-year, sustained, documented commercial presence across Israel and West Bank settlements, corroborated by NGO investigations, OHCHR database inclusion, ISIF exclusion, and investigative journalism. Proximity is assessed at Band 7.5–8.2 (Strategic Partner / Active Parent) because Airbnb is the direct operator — it directly contracts with Israeli and settlement-based hosts, directly processes payments, and directly enforces (or does not enforce) its platform policies in this market.9
The V-ECON picture is also shaped by regulatory and investor exposure. The OHCHR database listing has triggered the ISIF exclusion (2025), signalling that institutional capital is beginning to price in settlement-commerce exposure.14 The EU’s Psagot (C-363/18) ruling established that settlement-origin goods require distinct regulatory labelling; while it addressed physical goods rather than digital services, it reflects a broader EU legal posture that could, if extended to platform services, impose disclosure or delisting requirements on Airbnb’s settlement listings.26 No such enforcement action has been taken against Airbnb to date, but the regulatory trajectory is a forward-looking exposure rather than a current finding.
Airbnb’s European legal structure amplifies this exposure. Airbnb Ireland UC — the direct contracting entity for all European-based hosts and guests, including those in Israel and the occupied territories — is an unlimited company subject to Irish law and EU regulatory jurisdiction.17 Any EU measure requiring de-listing or geo-fencing of settlement properties would apply directly to Airbnb Ireland UC. The “Don’t Buy Into Occupation” (DBIO) campaign, now in its fourth edition, has specifically identified Airbnb as a principal target among online travel platforms sustaining settlement-tourism revenue, reflecting the organised and escalating nature of the civil-society pressure on this economic relationship.27
The most significant evidentiary limit is that Airbnb does not disclose country-level revenue, making it impossible to quantify the total service-fee income attributable to Israel or to settlement listings specifically. The approximately 200 settlement listings identified by HRW in 2018 provide a lower-bound reference, but current listing counts (2024–2026) have not been publicly verified. If the actual settlement-linked revenue were very small as a proportion of Airbnb’s global revenue, an argument could be made that the economic relationship is de minimis despite its legal and ethical significance. However, the rubric’s magnitude assessment is anchored on the documented continuity and civil-society materiality of the relationship, not solely on its financial quantum, and the absence of disclosure itself — combined with the 2019 commitment to donate profits that implies internal tracking of settlement-specific revenue — suggests the company recognises the financial materiality of the issue.
A second counter-argument concerns the 2019 humanitarian donation pledge: if Airbnb has faithfully donated all net revenues from settlement listings to credible humanitarian organisations throughout the period 2019–2025, this would represent a meaningful attempt to neutralise the economic benefit of settlement-linked revenue to Airbnb itself. However, the pledge’s fulfilment has never been independently verified — no total amount, no recipient organisations, and no annual accounting have been publicly disclosed in any corporate filing or press release reviewed for this audit. The pledge remains an unverified commitment, and its existence does not change the fact that settlement-based hosts continue to receive income from bookings, that Airbnb continues to collect service fees, and that the settlement economy continues to derive tourist-traffic benefits from Airbnb’s platform presence.
The Israeli subsidiary question is a genuine gap: if Airbnb Israel Technologies Ltd. holds significant local contracts, employs substantial local staff, or makes local tax payments, the V-ECON characterisation as “sustained trade without deeper integration” could require revision. The subsidiary’s formal registry details, director appointments, and intercompany arrangements have not been publicly verified.
| Entity | Type | Role in V-ECON Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Airbnb, Inc. | Target company | Direct fee-collecting marketplace operator in Israel and settlements |
| Airbnb Ireland UC | European operating subsidiary | Direct contracting party for European hosts/guests including Israeli/settlement users |
| Airbnb Israel Technologies Ltd. | Reported local subsidiary | Formal registry details unverified; flagged evidence gap |
| Human Rights Watch | NGO | November 2018 settlement-listings documentation |
| Amnesty International | NGO | “Destination: Occupation,” January 2019 |
| Who Profits Research Center | Israeli civil-society NGO | Ongoing Airbnb settlement-listings database entry |
| Al-Haq | Palestinian human rights NGO | UN OHCHR submissions on settlement-linked corporate activity |
| UN OHCHR | UN body | Settlement database (Feb 2020, June 2023, Sept 2025); Airbnb listed throughout |
| Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) | Sovereign investment fund | Excluded Airbnb per OHCHR database, 2025 |
| The Guardian | News organisation | February 2025 investigation confirming ongoing settlement listings |
| Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) | Human rights legal NGO | Multi-jurisdictional complaints re settlement revenue as criminal proceeds |
| Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) | Human rights legal NGO | Corporate liability analysis; Silber v. Airbnb engagement |
| AFSC Investigate | Civil-society database | Lists Airbnb with settlement-linked activities |
| Don’t Buy Into Occupation (DBIO) | Civil-society campaign | Fourth edition identifies Airbnb as principal target |
| Court of Justice of the EU (Psagot, C-363/18) | Judicial body | 2019 ruling on settlement-origin goods labelling; forward-looking regulatory exposure |
| Texas Comptroller | US state regulator | Anti-BDS list: added 2018, removed 2019 |
Airbnb’s V-POL score is grounded in three documented and analytically distinct elements: (1) a sustained business-as-usual normalisation of settlement commerce through platform architecture and policy inaction; (2) a CEO-authored and well-documented asymmetry between Airbnb’s operational responses to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Gaza conflict; and (3) the governance concentration that makes these choices directly attributable to the founding team rather than to an impersonal corporate bureaucracy.
The normalisation element is the baseline. Following the April 2019 reversal, Airbnb’s platform has treated Israeli settlements as standard commercial markets, listing settlement properties as ordinary tourist accommodation, applying identical commercial terms to settlement-based and Israel-proper listings, and — critically — designing or accepting a search interface that does not consistently distinguish between listings in internationally recognised Israeli territory and listings in territory classified as occupied under international law.1 The Guardian‘s February 2025 investigation documented this interface ambiguity directly. The effect is that a user searching for accommodation in the West Bank region may book a settlement property without receiving any explicit notification that the property sits on land classified as illegally occupied by the UN, the EU, and the ICJ. This is not passive neutrality: it is an active architectural and policy choice that normalises settlement commerce by making it indistinguishable from ordinary Israeli tourism.
The asymmetry between Ukraine and Gaza is the best-evidenced element of the V-POL assessment, corroborated by multiple independent sources. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Airbnb suspended all operations in Russia and Belarus within days,28 and CEO Brian Chesky personally pledged free short-term housing for up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees through Airbnb.org, with all platform fees waived.2 These were swift, unambiguous, operationally consequential decisions announced with the CEO’s personal voice. When Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 and Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza, Chesky posted a statement expressing concern for “everyone affected” and highlighting the company’s partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as evidence of its commitment to combating hate.11 No operational suspension of listings was announced — neither in Israel proper nor in the occupied territories. No equivalent refugee housing pledge for Palestinian civilians displaced by the Gaza campaign was identified in any public corporate communication reviewed for this audit.11 Civil society organisations and BDS campaigners publicly documented and criticised this asymmetry, as recorded by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.29
The ADL partnership citation is analytically significant not simply as evidence of asymmetry, but because it represents Airbnb’s CEO choosing a specific institutional alignment — with an organisation whose public positioning on Israeli policy is well-defined — at the precise moment when that alignment carried political meaning. No equivalent partnership with a Palestinian civil-society organisation, Arab-American advocacy body, or Islamophobia-focused organisation has been publicly announced or documented in materials reviewed for this audit.
On the governance dimension: Airbnb’s dual-class share structure concentrates effective voting control with the founding team. Brian Chesky personally authored the November 2018 removal announcement, the April 2019 reversal, and the October 2023 post-October-7 statement. These are not subsidiary or divisional decisions — they are direct CEO-level policy choices made by the individual who holds both the executive role and, through Class B shares, concentrated voting authority.15 This directness justifies the high Proximity score (Band 8.3–8.9, Controller / Architect): the political posture is owned by Airbnb’s leadership, not delegated or incidental.
The Silber v. Airbnb reversal warrants careful treatment. The April 2019 reinstatement followed litigation and legal challenges that created genuine legal and financial exposure. The Congressional Research Service has documented the coercive effect of federal and state anti-BDS statutes on corporate decision-making,30 and Harvard Law Review scholarship has characterised such statutes as raising significant First Amendment concerns precisely because they penalise participation in political boycotts.31 The V-POL assessment acknowledges this coercive legal context: the reversal was not purely a voluntary political choice, and this limits the characterisation of Airbnb’s political posture. However, the post-reversal sustained normalisation — continuing unchanged for six years — occurred in the absence of ongoing acute legal pressure, and the Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry (which occurred entirely in 2022–2023, well after the legal controversy was resolved) represents voluntary, uncoerced CEO-level conduct.
The GLAN multi-jurisdictional complaints escalate the legal dimension significantly. GLAN filed complaints in multiple jurisdictions characterising Airbnb’s settlement-listing revenue as constituting participation in money laundering — on the theory that settlement construction and associated property transactions are predicate crimes under international law, and that deriving commercial revenue from properties on illegally occupied land constitutes handling the proceeds of crime.32 The judicial status of these proceedings was not available for review at the time of this audit, but their filing represents a material escalation beyond civil discrimination litigation and is relevant to any assessment of Airbnb’s forward-looking legal and regulatory exposure.
Joe Gebbia’s departure from the Airbnb.org board in early 2025 amid controversy over his association with DOGE further illustrates the reputational exposure that arises from founder-level political associations.13 While the DOGE matter is orthogonal to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it demonstrates that Airbnb.org’s humanitarian brand identity is tightly bound to individual leadership figures, and that governance decisions at the founder level carry disproportionate reputational weight — precisely the dynamic that makes the Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry so salient.
The strongest counter-argument to the V-POL score is that the 2019 reversal was legally coerced rather than politically motivated. The Silber v. Airbnb litigation, the Texas anti-BDS listing, and the broader anti-BDS legislative environment created genuine legal exposure for Airbnb, and the reversal can be characterised as a rational legal-risk management decision rather than a political alignment with Israeli state interests. This characterisation has merit and is reflected in the Impact score being anchored at the upper end of the Business-as-Usual band (3.80) rather than in the Active Suppression or Active Advocacy bands. The audit explicitly discarded prior research memos that asserted unverified connections between Airbnb founders and FIDF/JNF donations or “Brand Israel” sponsorship, recognising that legal coercion and political advocacy are analytically distinct.
A second counter-argument concerns the ADL partnership: the ADL is a broad civil-rights organisation whose mandate extends well beyond Israeli-Palestinian political positioning, and Chesky’s citation of the ADL partnership may have been intended primarily as a statement against antisemitism rather than as a political endorsement of Israeli military operations. This reading has some validity, but it does not resolve the asymmetry: the absence of any equivalent civil-rights partnership with a Palestinian, Arab-American, or Muslim-American organisation at the same moment of heightened salience is the evidential point, not the ADL partnership in isolation.
Key evidence gaps include: verified records of Airbnb federal lobbying on Israel-related legislation (no LD-2 filing naming the Israel Anti-Boycott Act or related statutes has been reviewed); confirmed presence or absence on any post-2019 anti-BDS scrutinised companies list in US states; any internal corporate communications regarding the October 2023 policy review; and employee discipline records related to Palestine-related speech. Each of these gaps, if filled, could move the V-POL Impact band in either direction.
| Entity | Type | Role in V-POL Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Chesky | CEO and Co-Founder | Authored 2018 removal, 2019 reversal, October 2023 statement; primary political decision-maker |
| Joe Gebbia | Co-Founder; former Airbnb.org board member | Departed Airbnb.org board early 2025 (DOGE controversy) |
| Nathan Blecharczyk | Co-Founder and Chairman | No verified V-POL-specific activities identified |
| Alfred Lin (Sequoia Capital) | Board director | No verified V-POL-specific activities identified |
| Airbnb.org | Affiliated nonprofit | Humanitarian housing programmes; Ukraine refugee pledge; no Gaza equivalent |
| Anti-Defamation League (ADL) | Civil-rights organisation | Partnership cited by Chesky in October 2023 statement |
| Silber v. Airbnb plaintiffs | Litigants | Federal lawsuit triggering 2019 reversal |
| Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) | Human rights legal NGO | Case documentation; corporate liability analysis |
| Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) | Human rights legal NGO | Multi-jurisdictional money-laundering complaints re settlement revenue |
| BDS National Committee (BNC) | Civil-society campaign | Post-2019 campaign calling for re-delisting |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Civil-society monitor | Documents advocacy and Airbnb responses |
| Congressional Research Service | US legislative research body | Anti-BDS legislative landscape documentation |
| Harvard Law Review | Academic publication | Anti-BDS statutes and First Amendment analysis |
| OpenSecrets | Lobbying transparency body | Airbnb federal lobbying profile |
| The New York Times | News organisation | Russia/Belarus suspension reporting; Gebbia/DOGE departure |
| The Guardian | News organisation | February 2025 settlement-listings investigation |
| UN OHCHR | UN body | Settlement database; Airbnb listed from February 2020 |
Three cross-domain counter-arguments warrant explicit acknowledgment.
The “normalisation by omission” argument. Civil society organisations characterise Airbnb’s continued settlement listing as active normalisation of the occupation economy. The rubric scores what is documented, not what is alleged from structural inference. The documented facts — six years of settlement-listing continuation following a CEO-level deliberate reversal, combined with a search interface that obscures the settlement/Israel distinction — support a Band 3.1–4.0 V-POL Impact score on their own terms, without requiring a structural-complicity theory. The cross-domain effect is that V-ECON and V-POL are mutually reinforcing, but the composite formula prevents double-counting: only V-MAX (V-ECON, 3.25) receives full weight; the other domain scores contribute at 20% to the composite.
The “de minimis revenue” argument. Airbnb does not disclose country-level or settlement-specific revenue. An opponent could argue that settlement-linked revenue is financially immaterial and that the BDS-1000 score inflates the significance of a trivial commercial relationship. This argument cannot be fully rebutted without revenue disclosure. However, the rubric’s magnitude and proximity criteria are designed to capture sustained operational presence and direct corporate involvement, not solely financial materiality. The six-year documented presence, multi-source NGO documentation, OHCHR database inclusion, and ISIF exclusion collectively establish that the civil-society and regulatory community regards the relationship as material, regardless of its precise financial quantum.
The “legal coercion” argument (cross-domain). Applied across V-ECON and V-POL, this argument holds that Airbnb’s current settlement-listings posture reflects legal constraint (anti-BDS statutes, Silber v. Airbnb settlement terms) rather than free corporate choice, and that scoring the company as if it made a voluntary commercial decision misrepresents the causal structure. The counter to this is twofold: first, anti-BDS statutes do not legally require Airbnb to list settlement properties — they only prohibit government bodies from contracting with companies that refuse to do business with Israel, a different legal obligation; and second, the Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry (occurring in 2022–2023, not under the immediate shadow of the 2019 litigation) demonstrates that Airbnb is capable of voluntary operational activism when it chooses to deploy it.
| Entity | Type | Relevant Domains |
|---|---|---|
| Airbnb, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABNB) | Target company | V-DIG, V-ECON, V-POL |
| Airbnb Ireland UC | European operating subsidiary | V-ECON, V-POL |
| Airbnb Israel Technologies Ltd. | Reported Israeli subsidiary (unverified) | V-ECON |
| Airbnb.org | Affiliated nonprofit (501(c)(3)) | V-POL |
| Brian Chesky | CEO and Co-Founder | V-POL |
| Nathan Blecharczyk | Co-Founder and Chairman | V-POL |
| Joe Gebbia | Co-Founder; former Airbnb.org board member | V-POL |
| Alfred Lin | Board director (Sequoia Capital) | V-POL |
| Human Rights Watch (HRW) | International NGO | V-MIL, V-DIG, V-ECON, V-POL |
| Amnesty International | International NGO | V-MIL, V-DIG, V-ECON, V-POL |
| Who Profits Research Center | Israeli civil-society NGO | V-MIL, V-ECON |
| Al-Haq | Palestinian human rights NGO | V-MIL, V-ECON |
| UN OHCHR | UN body | V-MIL, V-DIG, V-ECON, V-POL |
| Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) | Sovereign investment fund | V-MIL, V-ECON |
| Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) | Human rights legal NGO | V-ECON, V-POL |
| Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) | Human rights legal NGO | V-ECON, V-POL |
| BDS National Committee (BNC) | Civil-society campaign | V-DIG, V-POL |
| Don’t Buy Into Occupation (DBIO) | Civil-society campaign coalition | V-ECON |
| American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) | Quaker civil-society NGO | V-ECON |
| Anti-Defamation League (ADL) | Civil-rights organisation | V-POL |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) | Civil-society monitor | V-MIL, V-POL |
| Amazon Web Services (AWS) | Cloud infrastructure provider | V-DIG |
| Guesty | Israeli-founded PMS software | V-DIG |
| Payoneer Global Inc. | Payments platform | V-MIL |
| Silber v. Airbnb | US federal litigation | V-MIL, V-ECON, V-POL |
| Texas Comptroller | US state regulator | V-MIL, V-ECON |
| Court of Justice of the EU (Psagot, C-363/18) | Judicial body | V-ECON |
| Domain | I | M | P | V-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V-MIL | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| V-DIG | 2.50 | 4.50 | 8.00 | 1.61 |
| V-ECON | 3.50 | 6.50 | 8.00 | 3.25 |
| V-POL | 3.80 | 5.50 | 8.50 | 2.99 |
Composite BDS-1000 Score: 261 — Tier D (200–399)
V-ECON is the highest V-Domain Score and contributes as V_MAX (full weight) to the composite. V-DIG, V-POL, and V-MIL contribute at 20% each as Sum_OTHERS. The formula is: BRS = ((V_MAX + Sum_OTHERS × 0.2) / 16) × 1000 = ((3.25 + 0.92) / 16) × 1000 = 261.
V-MIL scores zero across all three criteria with high confidence: Airbnb has no defence contracting, no dual-use products, no construction-equipment supply, no defence-prime supply-chain integration, no logistical sustainment, and no munitions nexus. V-DIG is capped at Band 2.1–3.0 Impact by the Directionality Rule — Airbnb is a consumer-services operator in Israel, not a technology vendor to the Israeli state. V-ECON captures six years of documented, uninterrupted settlement-linked service-fee revenue under direct CEO-level corporate decision. V-POL reflects sustained business-as-usual normalisation compounded by documented Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry, with CEO-level attribution throughout.
High confidence findings:
– V-MIL = 0 across all criteria; all reviewed sources converge on total absence of any military supply or defence-contracting nexus
– Airbnb is not a Project Nimbus contractor; the Directionality Rule applies in V-DIG
– The 2018 removal and 2019 reversal are primary-sourced from Airbnb’s own newsroom
– The Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry is documented across multiple independent sources
– OHCHR database inclusion (February 2020, June 2023, September 2025) is a formal UN determination
Moderate confidence findings:
– V-ECON Magnitude (6.50): anchored on documented continuous multi-year presence and confirmed materiality signals; exact Israel revenue undisclosed
– V-POL Impact (3.80): Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry well-evidenced; absence of verified active lobbying, FIDF/JNF donations, or “Brand Israel” sponsorship constrains the band
Open questions and evidence gaps:
– Settlement-specific revenue and donation pledge fulfilment: Airbnb has never publicly disclosed the quantum of settlement-linked service fees, the total amount donated under the 2019 humanitarian pledge, or the identity of recipient organisations. This is the most material evidence gap for V-ECON assessment.
– Airbnb Israel Technologies Ltd.: Formal registry details, directorship, and intercompany arrangements remain publicly unverified.
– Israeli R&D presence: No confirmed Airbnb Israel engineering entity exists in public records; the question is open rather than resolved in the negative.
– Guesty API relationship: Whether Airbnb has a formal commercial API-partner agreement with Guesty (as distinct from hosts independently using Guesty via the open API) remains unresolved.
– AWS il-central-1 workload routing: Whether any Airbnb data or workloads are routed through the Israel/Tel Aviv AWS region is unknown.
– Post-October 2023 policy review: Whether any internal Airbnb review of settlement-listings policy was conducted following the October 2023 conflict outbreak has not been publicly disclosed.
– GLAN complaint judicial status: The judicial status of GLAN’s multi-jurisdictional money-laundering complaints against Airbnb was not available for review.
– Employee speech and internal culture: No verified cases of Airbnb employees disciplined for Palestine-related speech were identified; this is an evidence gap rather than a negative finding.
The following recommendations are tied directly to validated evidence and the BDS-1000 score. Where evidence is uncertain, the recommendation reflects that uncertainty.
For institutional investors and ESG-mandate funds (score: 261, Tier D):
The ISIF exclusion and OHCHR database listing establish a credible regulatory and civil-society trigger for ESG screening review. The core exposure — six years of documented settlement-linked revenue from a deliberately maintained commercial policy — is well-evidenced and unlikely to reverse without a material policy change by Airbnb. Engagement with Airbnb’s investor-relations function on the 2019 donation pledge (fulfilment, amounts, recipients) is the highest-value near-term action, given that this is the only mechanism Airbnb has publicly deployed to address settlement-revenue concern. The dual-class share structure limits the practical impact of shareholder resolutions, but filing and supporting resolutions requiring disclosure of country-level revenue and settlement-specific booking data would narrow the principal evidence gap.
For consumer and civil-society actors (score: 261, Tier D):
The February 2025 Guardian investigation confirms that consumer-facing advocacy — requesting that Airbnb geo-fence or clearly label settlement listings — remains a live and evidenced campaign target. The platform’s failure to distinguish settlement from Israel-proper listings in its search interface is a specific, remediable design choice. The Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry provides a concrete, primary-sourced benchmark against which Airbnb’s stated values can be evaluated.
For regulators and policymakers (score: 261, Tier D):
EU Digital Services Act enforcement authorities have a live question before them: whether Airbnb’s failure to distinguish settlement from Israel-proper listings in its search interface constitutes misleading presentation of service geography under EU consumer-protection frameworks. The Psagot ruling’s logic — that settlement-origin commerce warrants distinct regulatory treatment — has not yet been tested against digital platforms; Airbnb Ireland UC’s Dublin domicile places it squarely within the jurisdiction of EU enforcement authorities. The GLAN multi-jurisdictional complaints additionally raise the question of whether settlement-linked booking revenue falls within scope of applicable money-laundering predicate-offence frameworks under domestic law.
For future audit purposes:
The four evidence gaps that would most materially change the BDS-1000 score if resolved are: (1) confirmation of Israeli-origin enterprise security software deployment in Airbnb’s own infrastructure (would increase V-DIG); (2) confirmed formal Airbnb–Guesty commercial partnership (modest V-DIG increase); (3) country-level revenue disclosure for Israel (could increase V-ECON Magnitude from 6.5 toward 7.0+); and (4) confirmation of active Israel-related lobbying in LD-2 filings (would increase V-POL Impact toward Band 4.1–5.0). Remediation paths: Israeli Companies Registrar and Israeli technology press for subsidiary and R&D centre questions; US Senate LD-2 filing database for lobbying; Airbnb’s annual sustainability or ESG report (if published) for donation-pledge fulfilment.
The Guardian, investigation confirming West Bank settlement listings — https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/feb/27/seized-settled-let-how-airbnb-and-bookingcom-help-israelis-make-money-from-stolen-palestinian-land ↩↩↩↩↩↩
Airbnb Newsroom, free housing for Ukrainian refugees — https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-to-provide-free-short-term-housing-for-up-to-100000-ukrainian-refugees/ ↩↩↩↩
Airbnb engineering blog — https://medium.com/airbnb-engineering ↩↩
Airbnb Newsroom, November 2018 listings announcement — https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-listings-in-disputed-regions/ ↩↩
Human Rights Watch, “Bed and Breakfast on Stolen Land” — https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/11/20/bed-and-breakfast-stolen-land/tourist-rental-listings-west-bank-settlements ↩↩
Texas Comptroller, anti-BDS scrutinised companies list — https://comptroller.texas.gov/purchasing/publications/divestment.php ↩↩
Amnesty International, “Destination: Occupation” — https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/9490/2019/en/ ↩
Center for Constitutional Rights, Silber v. Airbnb — https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/silber-v-airbnb ↩
Airbnb Newsroom, April 2019 West Bank update — https://news.airbnb.com/an-update-on-listings-in-the-west-bank/ ↩↩↩
UN OHCHR, database of businesses in Israeli settlements — https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/sessions/database-business-enterprises ↩↩↩↩↩
Brian Chesky via Twitter/X, October 2023 statement — https://twitter.com/bchesky/status/1711486804927533190 ↩↩↩
AWS Israel (Tel Aviv) region announcement — https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/8/aws-announces-general-availability-of-aws-israel-tel-aviv-region ↩↩
New York Times, Gebbia departure from Airbnb.org board — https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/joe-gebbia-airbnb-doge-departure ↩↩
Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF), exclusion list update 2025 — https://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/isif/responsible-investment ↩↩
Airbnb, Inc., IPO Prospectus Form 424B4, December 2020 — https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1559720/000119312520316023/d81668d424b4.htm ↩↩↩
Airbnb, Inc., Form S-1 Registration Statement, November 2020 — https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1559720/000119312520294801/d81668ds1.htm ↩↩↩
Airbnb Ireland UC Terms of Service — https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2855/airbnb-ireland-uc-terms-of-service ↩↩
Airbnb, Inc., Annual Report Form 10-K — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001559720&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=40 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
US Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, ITAR registration — https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=24d528fddbfc930044f9ff621f961987 ↩↩
UN Special Rapporteur on occupied Palestinian territory — https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine ↩
Airbnb.org Open Homes programme — https://www.airbnb.org/openhomes ↩
Airbnb engineering blog — https://medium.com/airbnb-engineering ↩
Israeli government Project Nimbus announcement — https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/nimbus-project ↩
Who Profits Research Center, Airbnb profile — https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3699 ↩
Al-Haq, UN OHCHR submission on corporate settlement activity — https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/8931.html ↩
CJEU judgment, Psagot C-363/18 — https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=220284&doclang=EN ↩
Don’t Buy Into Occupation, fourth edition report — https://dontbuyintooccupation.org/reports/fourth-edition/ ↩
New York Times, Airbnb Russia and Belarus suspension — https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/business/airbnb-russia-ukraine.html ↩
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Airbnb tracker — https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/companies/airbnb/ ↩
Congressional Research Service, anti-boycott legislation — https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44856 ↩
Harvard Law Review, anti-BDS statutes analysis — https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/11/the-new-anti-boycott-laws/ ↩
Global Legal Action Network, Airbnb complaint documentation — https://www.glanlaw.org/airbnb ↩
Reuters, Airbnb West Bank reversal — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbnb-israel-westbank/airbnb-reverses-west-bank-settlement-listing-ban-to-donate-profits-to-charity-idUSKCN1RL23C ↩
Associated Press, Airbnb reverses West Bank ban — https://apnews.com/article/9b3d9fcaaa7a4b46a90e52e7eaee282c ↩
BBC News, Airbnb reverses West Bank settlement ban — https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47859760 ↩
Reuters, Airbnb removes West Bank listings November 2018 — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbnb-israel/airbnb-removes-listings-in-jewish-settlements-in-israeli-occupied-west-bank-idUSKCN1NO2CR ↩
BDS National Committee, Airbnb campaign — https://bdsmovement.net/news/airbnb-must-end-its-complicity-israeli-settlements ↩
OpenSecrets, Airbnb lobbying profile — https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/airbnb/lobbying?id=D000067218 ↩
UN Human Rights Council Resolution 31/36 — https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/31/36 ↩
OHCHR database initial release, February 2020 — https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoHPoPs/database20Feb2020.pdf ↩
Amnesty International, Airbnb settlement listings statement 2018 — https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/11/airbnb-must-remove-listings-in-israeli-settlements/ ↩
Amnesty International UK, settlement listings press release — https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/airbnb-listings-illegal-israeli-settlements-must-be-removed ↩
Times of Israel, Texas removes Airbnb from boycott list — https://www.timesofisrael.com/texas-removes-airbnb-from-boycott-list-after-it-reverses-west-bank-ban/ ↩
Times of Israel, Airbnb reinstates West Bank listings — https://www.timesofisrael.com/airbnb-to-reinstate-west-bank-settlement-listings-donate-profits-to-charity/ ↩
Israel Policy Forum, Airbnb and the settlements analysis — https://israelpolicyforum.org/2019/04/11/airbnb-and-the-settlements/ ↩
Airbnb Project Lighthouse — https://news.airbnb.com/project-lighthouse-our-commitment-to-fight-discrimination-drives-new-initiatives/ ↩
Just Security, Airbnb West Bank analysis — https://www.justsecurity.org/63816/airbnb-and-the-west-bank-what-happened-and-what-comes-next/ ↩
Airbnb.org, About page — https://www.airbnb.org/about ↩
Airbnb non-discrimination policy — https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/our-nondiscrimination-policy-our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect ↩
BIS Denied Persons List and OFAC SDN List — https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern ↩
