EXCLUSIVE An Airbnb in a war zone? Global holiday rental giant facing legal action over offering stays in 100s of homes in illegal Israeli settlements
Airbnb is facing serious legal heat as human rights groups demand the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) launch a criminal investigation into the global rental giant over alleged money laundering links to Israeli settlements.
According to a damning new complaint, Airbnb have breached UK anti-money laundering laws by listing more than 300 holiday rentals in illegal Israeli settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem - territories widely recognised as occupied under international law.
The complaint, brought forward by the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Palestinian rights organisation Al-Haq, was officially filed with the NCA on Tuesday.
The groups accuse Airbnb's UK arm of handling profits from crimes committed under international law - namely, the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land.
But Airbnb's operations in the region are no secret. In fact, the company appears on the United Nation's blacklist of companies involved in activities tied to Israeli settlements - areas the UN, and now the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have declared illegal.
In a landmark ruling in July 2014, the ICJ stated Israel 's occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law.
The court further ruled that all states have a duty to end trade and investment that supports the occupation, a damning blow to any company still profiting from it.
Yet, Airbnb appears to have continued to operate in these areas.
Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'.
Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'.
As of 2023, there are currently over 300 listed properties up for rent in occupied territories which Al-Haq have displayed in a settlement watch infographic.
Al-Haq's Forensic Architecture Investigation Unit (FAI) conducted an in-depth investigation into Airbnb listings located in illegal Israeli settlements within the occupied West Bank.
'This investigation uncovered how Israeli settlers exploit resources and infrastructure systematically denied to Palestinians, including by using accommodation platforms like Airbnb to sustain their illegal presence on stolen Palestinian land,' the organisation's website reads.
But despite the unraveling controversy, Prashar claims as a business, Airbnb have a choice in who they carry out business with and are willingly choosing to rent out properties on 'stolen land' and with 'an entity that's being accused of genocide right now'.
'The fact that Airbnb are willing to continue the charade, are willing to continue to extract money from war crimes, says a lot about Brian Chesky (Airbnb's CEO), says a lot about the leadership of the company and says a lot about the board and everyone else who's responsible for these decisions,' he said.
Echoing Prashar's concerns, Shawan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq, said: 'At a time when we are witnessing genocide in Palestine, businesses like Airbnb are providing services that deny the Palestinian people their means of subsistence, threatening the viability of the group.
'Following the finding by the International Court of Justice, that Israel's occupation is illegal, business activities trading in goods and services that maintain the illegal occupation, must come to an end.'
Despite earlier pledges, Airbnb has a patchy track record. In November 2018, following heavy criticism from Human Rights Watch, Airbnb promised to 'act responsibly' and remove all listings in illegal Israeli settlements.
But less than six months later, in April 2019, the company quietly reversed its decision under legal pressure from Israeli hosts and US-based guests.
It instead vowed to donate profits from Israeli settlement listings to humanitarian causes.
An Airbnb spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Airbnb operates in compliance with applicable laws in Ireland, the UK, and the US.
'Since 2019, Airbnb has donated all profits generated from host activity in the West Bank to an international nonprofit, in line with our global framework on disputed territories'.
Critics claim this is not good enough.
'By continuing to let out properties on behalf of Israelis, who illegally occupy on stolen land, or even in some cases stolen homes from Palestinians, [Airbnb] are supporting that occupation. Airbnb listing a property in the West Bank is a breach of that ruling. They're in breach of international law,' Prashar said.
'They are basically saying: "We're cool with the Palestinians being dominated because we're going to make a quick buck of it and donate some of the rest of the money",' he added.
Zainah el-Haroun, a spokesperson for Al-Haq also said the donation 'misses the point entirely'.
'It is not enough to simply donate profits. Companies are morally and legally bound to ensure their activities do not support, maintain or benefit for Israel's unlawful occupation,' Haroun said.
'No charitable donation can undo the underlying human rights harms caused by facilitating any aspect of Israel's unlawful occupation.'
Pictured: A vehicle moves along a partially-demolished road ahead of an Israeli military armoured bulldozer during an army operation in the Palestinian refugee camps in Tulkarem in the northwest of the occupied West Bank on April 16, 2025
Pictured: Children walk past a damaged car along a street that was bulldozed by Israeli troops in an eastern neighbourhood of the occupied-West Bank city of Jenin, during an ongoing Israeli military operation on February 13, 2025
Human rights lawyers have said the donations do not cleanse the company of criminal liability.
'These are the first ever cases to apply anti-money laundering legislation in the UK and elsewhere to business activity in the illegal Israeli settlements,' Gerry Liston, a senior lawyer at GLAN said.
'They demonstrate that senior executives of companies profiting from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory risk prosecution for a very serious criminal offence'.
Alongside the UK complaint, GLAN has filed a legal challenge in Ireland after police there refused to investigate Airbnb Ireland's role in facilitating listings in the settlements.
GLAN has also sent a 'preservation letter' to Airbnb's parent company in the US - a key move under American legal procedures that could pave the way for discovery of internal documents.
A spokesperson for the National Crime Agency declined to confirm whether it would investigate, telling Middle East Eye: 'The NCA does not routinely confirm or deny the existence of investigations.'
In the Netherlands, a similar case led by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has also been brought against Booking.com, which like Airbnb lists properties in the illegal Israeli settlements.
Booking.com has been approached for comment.
ELSC joined GLAN, Sadaka and AL-Haq at the launch of the complaint at a press conference in Dublin on June10, 2025.
But with mounting legal pressure from coordinated actions across the UK, US, and Ireland, Airbnb's global business model is now under unprecedented scrutiny.
'This is not just immoral – we argue that it is illegal,' said statement from GLAN. 'And we are taking action to stop it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Will the UK stay out of Trump's war in Iran?
Just a week ago, after a sit-down meal with Donald Trump at the G7 summit, Keir Starmer was telling reporters that 'nothing the president said suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict'. It seemed, and must have seemed to UK government officials too, that weeks of calling for de-escalation and diplomacy had paid off – that Donald Trump was not about to intervene in Israel's war in Iran. Then, on Saturday night, the US launched an enormous strike on three nuclear sites in Iran. Deputy political editor Jessica Elgot talks through Starmer and his government's response to the escalating crisis since. And Helen Pidd asks, given the UK's close relationship to the US, might it still be dragged into this conflict?
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
The Wargame podcast: Fictional British government faces a terrifying choice in final episode
Under yet another attack from Russia, a fictional British government of former ministers and military chiefs face a terrifying choice in the final episode of The Wargame. The home secretary, played by Amber Rudd, asks a key question. "We have the nuclear deterrent. In what circumstances would we use it prime minister?" Sir Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary who is playing the PM, offers his view - but is it one that is shared by the rest of his wartime cabinet? The British side is struggling to respond to mounting pressure from an imagined Kremlin in episode five of the Sky News and Tortoise podcast series, released on Tuesday. The Russian leam has unleashed waves of missile strikes and is demanding the UK agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. 28:54 NATO allies still not fully committed to rallying to help, the UK's options are dangerously limited. The dilemma exposes the particular peril for a nuclear-armed nation, such as Britain, that has allowed its conventional fighting power to shrink too far. It means, in a crisis, the UK no longer has the ability to sustain a fight conventionally, so escalating to nuclear war would have to happen far more rapidly - or else admit defeat. 4:35 Rebuilding conventional military capability and capacity as well as restoring wider national resilience, though, will be expensive. Whether or not the government and the public want to pay for this kind of conventional deterrence, well that's the big choice.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
PM warns of 'era of radical uncertainty' - and says UK will increase defence spending
Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an "era of radical uncertainty" - but without promising any additional cash. The move - part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance - was panned as deceptive "smoke and mirrors" by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was "very slow" and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years. "In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities," he told chief presenter Mark Austin. 1:32 The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO's 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today. It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence. The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower. Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire - just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia's war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital. NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual - all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early. He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up. There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump's commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago. He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves. This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Spain's position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it. The UK was also slow to say yes - a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a "NATO-first" policy. As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders. There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK's Cold War past. It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of "national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945". Sir Keir said: "We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe. "That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience." The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience - a new and so far less clearly defined criteria. Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029. The defence goal is higher than the government's current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently. The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 - a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies. This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops. The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027. However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for "resilience and security" to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge. A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category. It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways. For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn - a significant chunk of national income. Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of "spin" over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon. "The threat to our country is real not spin," he told Sky News. "This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one."
