William: Fighting in Gaza must be brought to an end
Prince’s intervention, co-ordinated with No 10, threatens rift with Israel
THE Prince of Wales has called for an end to the fighting in Gaza in an intervention that risks sparking a diplomatic rift with Israel.
In a public statement, Prince William said “too many have been killed” in the conflict, urging more humanitarian aid and the release of hostages as he called for “an end to the fighting as soon as possible”.
Invoking Winston Churchill, he said: “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found, and I refuse to give up on that.”
His intervention was backed by Number 10, which said the nation should speak with “one voice”.
The Israeli government responded to his remarks last night, with spokesman Eylon Levy saying: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the Oct 7 atrocities is dismantled.
“We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. We also recall with gratitude his statement from Oct 11 condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.”
Israeli officials were caught off guard by the Prince’s words, and it is understood that they consider his statement to be naive. They are dismayed, but it is thought they decided not to go further in criticising him publicly because they did not want to enter into a row with the future King. The 41-year-old Prince’s intervention marks a departure for the Royal family, which normally avoids public comment on contentious or political issues.
He spoke on the eve of a crucial parliamentary vote, as Sir Keir Starmer attempted to avert a rebellion from Labour MPS by backing an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The Government retaliated with its own amendment, which did not go so far, supporting “moves towards a permanent ceasefire” instead.
Last night, a Downing Street source confirmed that the Kensington Palace team had approached it with the
Prince’s statement in advance, saying: “We saw it in advance and we were comfortable with it.”
A spokesman for Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said the Government welcomed the comments, which chimed with increasing global calls for a ceasefire. Asked whether Mr Sunak agreed with William’s assessment of the Israel-hamas war, the spokesman said: “We want to see an end to the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible, so it is consistent with the Government position and we welcome that intervention.”
His intervention came as Joe Biden’s US administration broke with the Israeli government this week to warn that the planned invasion of the Gazan city of Rafah “should not proceed under current circumstances”. In a draft United Nations resolution, it pushed for a vote on a “temporary ceasefire” and said invading the city, where more than one million Palestinians are sheltering, would have “serious implications for regional peace and security”.
Yesterday, an Israeli minister said the attempt to use the UN to halt its Rafah offensive was “ethically reprehensible”, with Amichai Chikli describing calls for a ceasefire as a “strategic folly”.
The Prince’s statement was released as he met British Red Cross aid workers involved in the humanitarian effort and spoke to their colleagues working on the ground in the region. He explained that the violence had left him “deeply moved as a father”.
He said: “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on Oct 7. Too many have been killed.
“I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released.
“Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home.
“Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found, and I refuse to give up on that.” Buckingham Palace declined to comment on whether the King supported his son’s stance.
The Prince’s intervention drew criticism from some politicians. Andrew Percy, the Tory MP and vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-semitism, said: “The underlying principle of our constitutional monarchy is that members of the Royal family do not engage in contentious political issues of the day on which there are divergent and strongly held beliefs in this country.
“Members of the Royal family would do well to remember that.”
In 2018, when he became the first member of the Royal family to pay an official visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Prince William spoke carefully of his hopes for a “just and lasting peace”.
Six years on, in his biggest, boldest public statement to date, the Prince of Wales has poured the strength of his feelings about the people he met into a striking humanitarian plea for the people of Gaza.
In precise language, he urged the return of Israeli hostages, named Hamas as terrorists, invoked Churchill, lamented the “sheer scale of human suffering” and called outright for an end to fighting.
In doing so, he waded into the most controversial issue of the day, on the eve of a critical House of Commons vote on calling for immediate ceasefire.
It was always going to be criticised. The Prince did it anyway.
Having grown up watching his grandmother and his father navigate the line between public duty and public intervention, William weighed up the options and – sources say – decided that the sight of innocent children caught up in conflict was worth the risk.
“It was really important to him,” said a source close to the Prince. “This is a personal thing for him. He talks a lot about that trip [in 2018], and meeting young people on both sides.
“He’s willing to use his platform to make interventions on things that he really believes in.”
While Queen Elizabeth II occasionally made her thoughts known in conversation, and King Charles preferred lobbying by letter, Prince William’s written statement left no room for misinterpretation or mishearing.
Low on platitudes and high on specifics, the future King calls for aid to be let in, hostages released, and humanitarian support to Gaza increased.
Those across the political and religious divides found fault; plenty questioned the wisdom of saying anything at all. Nigel Farage told him to “stick to the Baftas”. Social media users trilled: “William has gone woke!” Key global headlines were calmer: the New York Times called it a “rare, if measured, public statement”; The Times of Israel wrote of an “unusual” message that “expresses concern”.
Critically, the Prince has received the vocal support of the British Government, whose own messaging matches his closely.
The difference in the Prince’s boldness from 2018 to 2024 is clear, and a result of his growing confidence in international diplomacy.
He is also well-versed in the relationship between palace and government, and its limitations – royals not expected to venture into political opinion, let alone ahead of a vote and let alone in an election year.
He was 32 when his grandmother, the late Queen, was heard to tell a member of the public: “I hope people will think very carefully about the future” on the eve of the Scottish independence referendum, and received praise and criticism alike for her perceived influence.
His father was so known for having his own opinions that, when asked on his 70th birthday whether he would continue to meddle as King, was moved to clarify: “I’m not that stupid.”
The Prince of Wales has so far been comparatively inscrutable and – like his mother during her landmine campaigning – would no doubt reject the idea that calling for humanitarian aid was too political.
For some years, he has been surrounded by those who could help him tread that line. At the time of his 2018 trip, the Prince was advised by Sir David Manning, a former diplomat considered a mentor to William in his education in global affairs.
Since the summer, he has been advised by David Hunt, who has 21 years at the Foreign Office behind him including stints in Iraq and
Washington DC. Jean-christophe Gray, the Prince’s private secretary, who is soon to depart, was also a civil servant and served as spokesman for David Cameron when he was prime minister. William’s private secretary before him, Simon Case, has moved from palace to Parliament and is Cabinet Secretary.
Asked about the statement, a spokesman for Downing Street said: “We welcome that intervention. It is important that we speak (with) one voice as a nation.”
The Prince’s team had briefed the Foreign Office about his statement and No 10 were “aware” of the words in advance. Each was understood to be “happy with it”, although all sides stopped short of confirming they asked the Prince to say anything in the first place. “If the Prince of Wales wants to say something, the Prince of Wales says something,” said one source.
“This is incredibly personal for him,” said a palace aide, who cautioned against the idea that the 126-word
statement had been focus-grouped by a team of contributors.
It does, however, echo the words of the Foreign Secretary, and the Government’s position that “the priority must be an immediate pause in the fighting to get aid in and hostages out, then progress towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire”.a
Downing Street source said of the statement: “We saw it in advance and we were comfortable with it.”
The timing of the statement, the day before a Commons vote on calling for an immediate ceasefire, also raised questions. It was published moments before the Prince arrived at an engagement to hear from the British Red Cross teams in the region. There,
he told staff his 2018 visit “had a lasting impression on me” and meant he has “always been keeping an eye on what’s going on”. He spoke, it is said, “as a father”.
Kensington Palace stressed the visit had not been deliberately timed. They said it had been rearranged from last month, when the Princess of Wales, who had planned to attend with him, was in hospital for abdominal surgery.
Had the Prince released a statement much earlier, the reaction may have been different: Yougov polling tracks the public as significantly more likely to support ceasefire now than in November, in the more immediate aftermath of the Hamas atrocities.
Next week, the Prince will visit a synagogue to hear of the recent rise in anti-semitism.
“The Prince has followed the region closely since his visit,” said a source close to William. “Since October, that has never been more true.”
In years gone by, the Prince of Wales has spoken privately about wanting to “push the envelope”, navigating the challenge of deciding when, where and how to nudge forward the issues he cares about without compromising his position in public life.
It is impossible to please everyone. Eugene Rogan, professor of Modern Middle Eastern History and Fellow of St Antony’s College at the University of Oxford, said: “Some are bound to criticise him for not mentioning the Israelis held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in addition to his reference to the Oct 7 attacks.
“Others might have wished his language calling for a ceasefire to be more forceful, such as in calling for an immediate ceasefire.
“But in my view he managed to avoid anything overtly political which might have crossed the line in a royal statement.”
Whatever criticism or praise Prince William’s words inspire, this was not a statement composed on the hoof. The next question, of whether he will make it a habit, will define his legacy.
‘He managed to avoid anything overtly political that might have crossed the line in a royal statement’