Riot police block protesters from approaching Israeli cruise ship in Greece
Protests have been held at Greek islands and mainland ports along the route of the Crown Iris, several of which have led to clashes with police.
At the port of Piraeus, near Athens, on Thursday demonstrators held flares and waved Palestinian flags behind a cordon formed with riot police buses.
Protest organizers, citing online posts from travelers, said off-duty Israeli soldiers were among the passengers.
'They are unwanted here and have no business being here,' protest organizer Markos Bekris said. 'The blood of innocent people is on their hands, and we should not welcome them.'
Greece is a popular holiday destination for Israelis. But the ongoing war in Gaza — and global attention on the widespread destruction and severe food shortages — has triggered hundreds of anti-Israel protests in Athens and other Greek cities, as well as a political confrontation.
Left-wing opposition parties are calling on the conservative government to halt commercial and broad military cooperation with Israel.
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
Judge urged to shut down hotel housing asylum seekers in Epping
A high court judge has been asked to shut down a hotel housing asylum seekers amid concerns about violence and disorder seen at far-right protests at the site. The local council applied for an urgent injunction against the owners of the Bell hotel in Epping, Essex, that would immediately prevent them housing asylum seekers – having repeatedly called on the Home Office to close it down. A series of protests have occurred since an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault against a 14-year-old girl in July. A second asylum seeker has since been charged with sexual assault. During a hearing before Mr Justice Eyre on Friday, Epping district council's lawyer Philip Coppel KC said the site had ceased to be used as a hotel – its 'sole lawful use'. This, he argued, was a 'clear breach' of planning law. He also cited the concerns of local residents, as well as the safety of the asylum seekers themselves among the justifications for an immediate ban. The hotel's owners argued the planning issue was central – and was insufficient to justify the 'exceptional step' of an immediate interim injunction. It could be dealt with via conventional enforcement action or at a final injunction hearing, they argued. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, argued asylum seekers had been housed at the Bell for about a year and a half without issue – with problems only arising recently. He told the court: 'In reality, this is an injunction by the council against the [recent] protests and the civil unrest. The council has targeted the wrong institution.' Coppel claimed the placement of asylum seekers put the local community at 'enhanced risk'. He said the alleged sexual offences took place close to the hotel – and that there were schools welcoming about 1,800 children in similar proximity. 'Having this sort of thing go on, with such a concentration of schools, with no measures to stop a repetition is not acceptable. That risk is needs to be removed … parents have the well-founded apprehension that the continued placement of asylum seekers at the Bell hotel represents a risk to those students.' Coppel said the asylum seekers themselves were not safe. 'The occupants, some of whom are vulnerable, are being housed in circumstances that can be described as intimidating. It is the last thing they need.' Riley-Smith said his client believed local residents' concerns were genuine. He said: 'It is clear recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological or political issues.' He argued that, if there were an urgent need to remove the asylum seekers and return the site to a conventional hotel because of fears about criminality, it would need to be shown the average asylum seeker has a greater propensity to commit crime than the average hotel guest. There was no such evidence, Riley-Smith told the court. Moreover, he said, were protests to be used as a reason to grant an urgent injunction against housing asylum seekers, this could be repeated at any place being used to welcome them across the country. Mr Justice Eyre reserved judgment until next Tuesday and ordered the hotel's owners not to take in any new asylum seekers before then.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Housing migrants in protest-hit Epping hotel was a 'financial lifeline' for its owners and ending its use for asylum seekers would cause 'financial harm', High Court hears
The housing of asylum seekers at a controversial hotel in Epping was a 'financial lifeline' for its owners, a court has heard. The Bell Hotel has been targeted by spate of anti-immigration protests after one of its residents was charged with the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl last month. Epping Forest District Council is now seeking an injunction from the High Court against its owners, Somani Hotels Ltd, to stop migrants being housed there. Barristers representing the company claimed at the High Court on Friday that the ending of the building's use an asylum hotel would cause 'financial harm'. Piers Riley-Smith told the court that migrants were a monetary 'lifeline' for the hotel, which was only one per cent full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. He added that an injunction would 'cause harm to the Home Office 's statutory duty to asylum seekers' and cause them 'hardship'. It comes after lawyers representing the council said housing asylum seekers at the hotel is becoming a 'very serious problem' which 'could not be much worse'. They claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules as the site is no longer being used for its intended purpose as a hotel. The injunction sought by the authority, if granted, would require the company to stop housing asylum seekers at the hotel within 14 days. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Concluding his submissions, Mr Coppel told Mr Justice Eyre that if an injunction was not granted, 'Your Lordship will be telling the residents in Epping: 'You have just got to lump it''.' He added that the council is 'acting in a proportionate way, in the interests of its residents', and that 'enough is enough'. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He added that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that it was 'entirely wrong' for the council to 'suggest the use has been hidden from them'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024. He said that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind - as recognised by the claimant - that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' He added: 'It also sets a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions.' Police issued a dispersal order in Epping before the march on July 24, which included the town centre and transport hubs such as the Underground station The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday, with the judge saying it was 'unlikely' that a ruling would come this week. He said: 'I am not going to close my notebook and give a decision now. 'I am going to reflect on this, but we need a decision sooner rather than later.' The judge later said that he would give a ruling at 2pm on Tuesday. He also ordered that Somani Hotels Limited could not 'accept any new applications' from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had ruled on whether to grant the temporary injunction.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Council faces wait for ruling on asylum seekers hotel injunction bid
A council will discover on Tuesday whether it has been successful in a bid to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes following a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel after an asylum seeker who was housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council claimed Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, and that the situation 'could not be much worse'. The injunction sought by the authority, if granted, would require the company to stop housing asylum seekers at the hotel within 14 days. Barristers for the company said the 'draconian' move would cause 'hardship' for those inside the hotel, and that 'political views' were not grounds for an injunction to be granted. They also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Eyre said: 'I am not going to close my notebook and give a decision now. 'I am going to reflect on this, but we need a decision sooner rather than later.' The judge later said that he would give a ruling at 2pm on Tuesday. He also ordered that Somani Hotels could not 'accept any new applications' from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had ruled on whether to grant the temporary injunction. The hotel has become the focal point of a series of protests after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl. Kebatu, who was housed at the hotel at the time of the incident, denies the allegations and is due to stand trial later this month. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said the authority had a 'very serious problem' which was 'getting out of hand' and causing 'great anxiety' to residents. He said this had been caused by a 'breach of planning control' by the company, with the site 'no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender' for asylum seekers. In written submissions, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction', which included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. Concluding his submissions, Mr Coppel told Mr Justice Eyre that if an injunction was not granted, 'Your Lordship will be telling the residents in Epping: 'You have just got to lump it'.' Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant' and that it was 'entirely wrong' for the council to 'suggest the use has been hidden from them'. The barrister told the court the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. In court, he said that while there were genuine concerns among local residents, these had 'expanded' to include 'concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community'. He continued that these 'particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning', and that the concerns of local residents did not 'justify' a temporary injunction.
