Is settlement tourism making the situation worse in the disputed West Bank region? That is a question that remains to be answered. Despite Airbnb changing course on its earlier decision to ban listings for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the legal battle continues.
The Middle East crisis between Israel and Palestine has also engulfed online marketplaces. The curious case is that of Airbnb, which has been fighting a litigation concerning its 200-odd listings in the disputed and Israel-occupied West Bank region since November last year.
The online holiday rental portal has been put in a ‘to be or not to be situation’, that questions the legitimacy of the listings on land that is “at the core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians”. There is, however, another important question: Whether it is legitimate for settlers to make money by renting out their properties on disputed land?
Airbnb admits that it is a controversial issue.
For years, human rights organisations, Palestinian activists and their supporters had urged Airbnb and other companies to stop doing business in the occupied West Bank. Amnesty International had singled out tourism giants Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia, and TripAdvisor in a recent report, saying that they were profiting from “war crimes” by offering services to Israel’s illegal settlements. The report stated that “in doing business with settlements, all four companies are contributing to, and profiting from, the maintenance, development and expansion of illegal settlements, which amount to war crimes under international criminal law”. It, therefore, called on “governments worldwide [to] take action to regulate companies or activities over which they have control”.
Things have not been easy for Airbnb on any front.
Denne historien er fra August 2019-utgaven av Legal Notes.
Start din 7-dagers gratis prøveperiode på Magzter GOLD for å få tilgang til tusenvis av utvalgte premiumhistorier og 9000+ magasiner og aviser.
Allerede abonnent ? Logg på
Denne historien er fra August 2019-utgaven av Legal Notes.
Start din 7-dagers gratis prøveperiode på Magzter GOLD for å få tilgang til tusenvis av utvalgte premiumhistorier og 9000+ magasiner og aviser.
Allerede abonnent? Logg på
Time For Action
Since time immemorial, the environment has had a larger-than-life place in the Indian scheme of things. But the Nineties and the new century have really been a sad story of a virtually unending line of laws failing to combat the increasing levels of pollution brought forth by urbanisation, and the global pressure about greenhouse emissions resulting in the Paris accord that now brings in its wake greater pressure on countries to tighten laws. Amidst all this, India shines as a classic example of the irrational mindset of enacting more laws to produce less pollution. RACHANA RANA BHATTACHARYA, while examining the dizzying number of laws that engulf us and the incredulously lopsided judicial pronouncements made by different courts, poses a simple question: What is the way forward?
Who's Responsible For Fukushima?
Even as the Fukushima nuclear disaster continues to haunt a section of the Japanese people and the world, a Japanese Court’s decision to acquit the nuclear power company, TEPCO’s bosses after three years of trial, raises questions over the use of nuclear power for energy needs.
Tata, Bye-Bye?
What would one choose between their right to vote in local body elections and to receive world class civic amenities? The answer isn’t as simple as it looks. Jamshedpur — the land of the Tatas has been struggling with this question for the last 30 years and looks like they still haven’t found an answer. Maintained by the Tatas, there has been a steady incline in the number of voices demanding a government operated municipality to take over the town. In the midst of consecutive orders by various High Courts, the Supreme Court and clashing opinions, SHWETA MENON in her visit to the steel city found that the majority verdict by the janta remains in favour of the Tatas.
No Winners In The Opioid Case
Pain can make you rich and the opioid issue in the US is testimony to that. But other than the wealth it spawned, opioid has generated a huge number of legal cases in the US – and quite a few of them have been filed by the states. Will the Sacklers, one of the richest families in the US and the makers of the pain-relieving drug OxyContin, go scot free?
J&-K A Jumble Of Laws
The transition of Jammu and Kashmir from a state to a Union Territory hasn’t been an easy one.
Tourism Of A Different Kind
Is settlement tourism making the situation worse in the disputed West Bank region? That is a question that remains to be answered. Despite Airbnb changing course on its earlier decision to ban listings for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the legal battle continues.
Another Toothless Commission!
There was a walkout by the opposition, protests were staged across the capital, activists were shoved into police vans, letters were written to the President urging him to not sign the amendment and yet the central government was finally able to hit a six in its second attempt this year to amend the RTI (Right to Information) Act!
Labour's “Decent Life” Dreams Continue
“Every moving The Code on Wages Bill, 2019 made it a point to inform the Members of the Rajya Sabha that the government had accepted 17 out of the 24 recommendations made by the Standing Committee which had scrutinised a similar bill introduced in the previous Lok Sabha.
Article 370 - The Albatross Around The Neck
Considered an ‘albatross around the neck’ by the present BJP government at the centre, the sudden and surprising abrogation of Article 370 has opened the doors to a flood of emotions. The abrogation will be debated and tested in the Supreme Court, but it seems that the move has already won in the peoples’ court.
UAPA Amendment: Need Of The Hour
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, which has received the Presidential assent after being passed in both the Houses of Parliament in the just-concluded session, empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to designate an individual as a “terrorist”.
