I mean usually if you can reliably let guests in, you're the owner or work for the owner. Palestine is a very special case in this regard.

What's you actual argument for travel being more expensive if Booking.com doesn't host stolen property?

Given that they can't really reliably check what property is stolen in Israel or Palestine, the alternative is to exit the entire country. Having only hotels and no airbnb style housing (if both booking and airbnb leave) means travel to that country or inside it gets more expensive.

But by stretching that logic, they should also exit eastern Europe. Not every family got back the homes that the soviet union stole the inhabitants were shipped off to Siberia. Or really, they should exit the entire world, as you can scam people out of their property basically anywhere. Just have an old person sign over the deed in exchange for promises you'll never keep.

But essentially if they exit an entire country, that absolutely IS the same as saying people shouldn't travel there. Which in the case of Israel I'd agree with, but most companies don't want to take political stances since you'll piss of a bunch of people no matter what, especially since half the western world has been brainwashed into thinking anti-zionism = anti-semitism. Hence what the CEO said about not saying where people should or shouldn't travel.