Profiting from tourism in illegal Israeli settlements

In her report, From economy of occupation to economy of genocide,(opens in new window) the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory Francesca Albanese, explicitly calls out such commercial activity, stating: “Major online travel platforms, used by millions to reserve accommodation, profit from the occupation by selling tourism that sustains the colonies, excludes Palestinians, promotes settler narratives and legitimises annexation.”

The case filed by the Spanish groups argues that by promoting, facilitating and monetising settlement tourism, online travel platforms have profited from war crimes, while integrating those revenues into their accounts as if they were lawful commercial income. The legal basis for their complaint is Article 301 of the Spanish Criminal Code, which criminalises the integration into the financial system of profits derived from crimes, including war crimes.

Prior to the 17 February filing, a larger group of organisations 1 had tried to get the Madrid Public Prosecutor to investigate eDreams. However, when the prosecutor decided not to open an investigation, on the spurious grounds that the EU and Spain did not have an explicit ban on doing business in settlements, the formal complaint was filed. Spanish law on proceeds of crime does not require such a ban.

What our investigation reveals

The complaint is based on evidence collected by SOMO and Centro Guernica G37 between September 2024 and October 2025.

• September 2024 – July 2025: SOMO and Centro Guernica G37 documented more than 43 accommodation listings on hotels.edreams.com(opens in new window) , including properties in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem and the Occupied Syrian Golan. Several listings were fully bookable. We completed seven test bookings in Spain between October 2024 and July 2025, with payments processed and confirmation emails sent for each.
• September – October 2025: On 3 September, eDreams publicly announced(opens in new window) it had disengaged from the OPT, and its hotels.edreams.com site subsequently went offline. However, in follow-up research, SOMO and G37 identified another platform, accommodation.edreams.es(opens in new window) , which appears to be an eDreams site, as it is branded as eDreams and features the company logo. However, it is operated by a different company, Travelscape LLC, a subsidiary of Expedia. In September 2025, 35 listings in settlements remained active, and in October, four reservations were completed for future dates. The complaint argues that eDreams, while not owning this site itself, was paid commissions for bookings made via the site.

Business in settlements: not a legal grey area

Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. They are established and maintained through acts that constitute war crimes, including the transfer of the occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory and the unlawful appropriation and exploitation of land and natural resources. In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the listing of tourism accommodation is not an isolated policy, but a central pillar of Israel’s institutionalised regime of racial domination and oppression of the Palestinian people, amounting to apartheid(opens in new window) and systematically fragmenting the territory and dispossessing Palestinians.

The illegality of Israel’s prolonged occupation, annexationist policies and settlement enterprise was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in its July 2024 Advisory Opinion(opens in new window) . The court made clear that states must “take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel”, including the illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Spanish criminal law, too, in article 611.5 of the Spanish Criminal Code, treats settlement-related acts, including the exploitation of occupied land, as war crimes. Moreover, article 614 of the Spanish Criminal Code punishes any individual who contributed to a breach of international humanitarian law, including article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention, which forbids the creation of settlements in occupied territory by the occupying power.

Against this legal backdrop, the complaint argues that income generated from settlement tourism, including platform commissions, booking fees and referral revenues, must be treated as proceeds of war crimes.

The platform model: profit without responsibility

The case centres on the business model of the online travel industry. eDreams does not operate as an independent accommodation provider. According to its financial accounts, since September 2022(opens in new window) , its hotel business has relied on hotel inventory from other platforms, such as Booking.com and Expedia. This includes properties located in illegal settlements.

In early September 2025, eDreams publicly announced that it had withdrawn and would continue to block accommodation listings in settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They did so after civil society pressure. Around the same time, hotels.edreams.com(opens in new window)  went offline. This has highlighted the company’s reactive rather than proactive approach.

As noted above, however, subsequent monitoring by researchers found that the eDreams brand was still being used on a site that offered accommodation listings in illegal settlements. The site was operated by a different company, namely Travelscape, but eDreams was allegedly being paid commission. This kind of complex corporate arrangement can allow companies to make profits while distancing themselves from responsibility.

Moving towards accountability: a test case

eDreams removed listings in September 2025, after pressure from activists. But removing listings does not repair harm or guarantee non-repetition. Neither does the cessation of allegedly criminal activity undo the need for a criminal investigation. Without transparency, independent monitoring, and accountability, disengagement risks functioning as a public-relations measure. This is what the complaint filed in Spain today seeks to achieve: accountability, assurances that the harm will not be repeated, and to pave the way for a remedy for affected Palestinians and Syrians.

Spanish courts are now being asked to investigate whether online travel platforms have profited from activities rooted in war crimes, and whether international law and Spanish criminal law can be effectively enforced to stop such corporate conduct and ensure accountability.

This anti-money laundering case forms part of wider efforts to stop online travel agencies from doing business in Israeli settlements, which include legal actions against Booking.com in the Netherlands (a criminal complaint co-filed by SOMO), Airbnb in Ireland(opens in new window) , and Booking.com and Airbnb in France(opens in new window) .

Spain has begun signalling a willingness to address this conduct, including through new legal frameworks, by classifying the promotion of settlement goods and services as illegal advertising(opens in new window) , and by taking public positions such as its recognition of the State of Palestine. In addition, the Spanish Ministry of Consumers(opens in new window) has formally required seven multinational platforms with activity in Spain to remove holiday listings in settlements, deeming such offers unlawful under the new regulatory framework, indicating that non-compliance may lead to further administrative actions.

The critical question now is whether these political and regulatory signals will be followed by robust enforcement: namely, the opening of investigations into the role of tourist platforms in facilitating and profiting from illegal settlement-related activities, including under anti-money laundering and other criminal law frameworks.

Responses from the companies

SOMO contacted all of the companies named in this article. In an email to SOMO on 14 January, eDreams stated that it takes “the allegations raised [by SOMO] very seriously”. The company also said that their “corporate position remains firm: it is not the intention of eDreams to generate business or revenue from accommodations located in the occupied Palestinian territories or the occupied Syrian Golan.” eDreams claimed the settlement listings found in late 2025 “may be linked to a specific external technical integration¨ and they see these as “isolated technical discrepancies”, and the company was carrying out an internal investigation to determine how those listings appeared in their inventory. On 16 January 2026, Booking.com wrote to SOMO that its partnership with eDreams had ended in September 2025 and that it “no longer has any kind of commercial or technical relationship with eDreams”. A criminal complaint concerning Booking.com’s activities in relation to settlement listings is currently pending in the Netherlands. In the past, in its responses to SOMO´s findings, Booking.com has maintained that, in its view, its activities do not violate applicable laws, including international law.