Yom Kippur, which this year starts on the evening of October 4, is the Jewish Day of Atonement. Jewish communities around the world spend the day fasting, praying, and asking for forgiveness, all with an eye to self-improvement.
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, a visiting professor at UCLA School of Law, once reflected on how Judaism views the dangers of deception. “The general Jewish requirement is that we be honest in both our dealings with each other and in how we speak to and about each other,” he wrote.
To that end, Yom Kippur would be an ideal time for news organizations and self-proclaimed human rights groups to reflect on their apparent double standards against Israel and how they may have harmed possible future efforts toward peace in the Middle East.
The Associated Press (see here and here), Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, and the Palestinian Authority-controlled WAFA News Agency all reported last week on hotel website Booking.com’s initial efforts to post “safety warnings” for Israeli communities in the West Bank, while referring to Judea and Samaria as “occupied territories.”
Jerusalem’s Tourism Minister Yoel Razovov, a close confidant of Prime Minister Yair Lapid, immediately threatened Booking.com with “diplomatic war” and legal action similar to that taken by Israel against Airbnb four years ago.
Meanwhile, Booking.com was cautious not to say anything further before their final decision was made.
On October 1, 2022, Booking.com officially posted its travel advisory warning for both Palestinian and Israeli cities in the West Bank. Thanks to pressure from the Israeli government and pro-Israel NGOs, the company deviated from its initial anti-Israel plans:
🔴 So, @bookingcom released its much hyped ‘warning label’ on properties in West Bank, #Israel. Is as generic as it gets. Ramallah has exact same wording. Other places, like Cyprus, far stricter. Booking understood consequences. Forget the spin, this = complete victory over BDS! pic.twitter.com/7u68tYsw9C
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) September 30, 2022
News agencies did not report on Booking.com’s final decision to be impartial and non-discriminatory against Israelis. Where is the media when the Jewish state successfully defends itself against anti-Israel moves?
The problem was that Booking.com phrased its initial decision as concerning the safety of its customers, but planned to issue the warning only for Jewish communities.
This sounds like a cover-up for anti-Israel motivations inspired by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, whose ultimate goal is the end of Israel. The Times of Israel reported that Human Rights Watch’s Israel and Palestine [sic] Director, Omar Shakir, supported Booking.com’s initial announcement, and quoted him as saying: “[The] notification in and of itself doesn’t end Booking’s contribution to serious rights abuses… the company should stop brokering rentals in illegal settlements in places like the occupied West Bank.”
Notably, Shakir has a long history of anti-Israel activity, having praised Palestinian terrorist Mohammad al-Halabi, as well as the BDS boycott against Israeli businesses (here and here). He has also charged Israel with creating an “open-air prison,” a false reference to Gaza:
Israel, w Egypt's help, has turned Gaza into an open-air prison—for 15 yrs barring 2 million Palestinians from moving freely in their homeland/abroad. New @hrw report finds closure unlawful, part of Israel's crimes against humanity of apartheid/persecution https://t.co/c0wpX4RrpW pic.twitter.com/48dnUHdaSy
— Omar Shakir (@OmarSShakir) June 14, 2022
Criticism of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is largely absent from Shakir’s social media posts.
Related Reading:
Booking.com’s intended “safety warning” against Israeli accommodations did not only amount to one-sided political activism, but also had the potential to hurt ordinary citizens trying to sustain a simple life by hosting travelers.
Lital and Zohar are a retired couple living in Vered Jericho who meet their basic financial needs by running a homey Mexican-style bed and breakfast (and can be found on Facebook and Booking.com). Their hospitality is heartwarming and their energy is contagious.
Zohar expressed his confusion and frustration about Booking.com trying to intervene in political conflicts:
We are [a] small business, we are just a couple actually living from one income, renting [this] room. It’s not something easy, I mean as a company… as a big organization, like Airbnb, you take [a] side in this conflict. What do you do? Why [do] you do it? I don’t understand, it’s a question for Airbnb or Booking. Why [are] you intervening in politics when it’s not your field? Why [are] you doing it? Every little move, every little warning has [an] impact on our business.”
The couple reportedly experienced a fifty percent decrease in reservations after the Airbnb fiasco in 2018. They sadly recall better times when international travelers were their main guests. Now only Israelis come to visit.
Related Reading:
International law on the subject has been described as “ambiguous and confusing” by Professor Avi Bell, one of the few internationally renowned lawyers who specialize in both property and international law.
After the signing of the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements forged in the 1990s between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the newly created Palestinian Authority was given control over Areas A and B of the West Bank, home to 90% of of the Arab population therein. Meanwhile, Israel was to retain complete control over Area C, which contains all Jewish West Bank communities.
Media outlets from The Independent to Al Jazeera have pointed out that “Israeli settlements in the West Bank” are “illegal” under international law. Article 49(6) in the fourth Geneva Convention states that:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
However, as Prof. Bell explained, the convention does not mention “settlements” and refers only to governments forcing their own citizens into occupied lands. If the government (the “occupying power”) forces (“deports” or “transfers”) its own population into areas claimed to be under occupation, this is illegal.
Yet under the Geneva Convention, citizens are free to move wherever they want — and, crucially, Israel does not force its population to move to Judea and Samaria.
The final draft of the Rome Statute was implemented in 2002 by the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which the majority of countries around the world are a member — except Israel, the United States, and five other countries.
According to many scholars, the ICC has no jurisdiction in Israeli-administered territory, including the West Bank which it gained in the 1967 defensive against Arab countries that attacked Israel.
Another relevant article is Article 8(8) of the Rome Statute. Bell mentions that the ICC “adopted” Article 49 with a slight change in the wording:
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.”
Bell pointed to the words: “directly or indirectly.” Indeed, this vague wording allows for multiple interpretations of the law.
Related Reading:
To understand how to interpret Article 49(6) and Article 8(8), George Mason University law professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert in constitutional and international law, ran a study examining the historical use of Article 49(6) and compared it to the Israeli building in the West Bank.
In his research, he draws a few significant conclusions:
- The arrival of settlers has in the case studies here typically been accompanied by a similarly large-scale expulsion or departure of the prior population. […] Israel appears to be among the unusual exceptions in which prior populations remained intact.
- The occupying powers’ evident judgment that they are not obligated to prevent or obstruct such activities [settlements by citizens] has in no case been challenged by the international community, giving it presumptive validity.
- …the migration of people into occupied territories is overwhelmingly the rule rather than the exception where such territories are geographically adjacent.”
Israel has been repeatedly condemned in international media and courts for their building based on Article 49(6). Kontorovich proves that when it comes to Israel, the law is interpreted differently.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has compiled all condemnations from the Geneva Convention to the International Criminal Court (ICC) of Article 49(6) and Article 8(8), which they place under Rule 130. Avi Bell states:
99 percent of the material is condemnations of Israel, there is no mention of Turkey, Morocco, Armenia, or Azerbaijan, etc. There is one real case in the entirety of the practice, the one real case there’s ever been having to do with transferring and deporting populations and it is from the Nuremberg Tribunal [Nazi Germany].”
All in all, it becomes clear that journalists and so-called “human rights defenders” around the world hold double standards for Israel and its residential communities in Judea and Samaria. In the end, locals like Lital and Zohar suffer from the decisions of big corporations like Booking.com, Airbnb, and the news agencies that enter political conflicts they have very little understanding of.
Yom Kippur can be a time for these organizations to reflect and recommit to advocating for the truth and fairness.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.
