Prince of Wales knew Gaza plea would court controversy – and did it anyway

The Prince of Wales talks to British Red Cross employees in London on Tuesday, soon after his statement was released – KIN CHEUNG/POOL VIA REUTERS

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 the 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 an immediate ceasefire.

His intervention 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 of speaking out.

The Prince of Wales listens to Pascal Hundt, senior crisis manager of the International Committee of the Red Cross, on a video call from Gaza to the organisation’s London HQ – KIN CHEUNG/POOL VIA REUTERS

“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.”

The Prince did not do so naively.

While Elizabeth II occasionally made her thoughts known in conversation, and King Charles prefers lobbying by letter, Prince William’s written statement left no room for misinterpretation or mishearing.

‘Unusual’ message

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 immediately 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 Government, whose own messaging matches his closely.

The Prince’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2018 made a powerful impression on him – GALI TIBBON/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

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 are not expected to venture into political opinion, let alone ahead of a vote and in an election year.

He was 32 when his grandmother was heard telling 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.

‘We welcome that intervention’

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, an eminent former diplomat considered a mentor to the young 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 the official spokesman for Lord Cameron when he was prime minister. William’s private secretary before him, Simon Case, has moved from palace to Parliament and is now 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 ahead of releasing it, and Number 10 was “aware” of the words in advance.

Prince William touches the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest site where Jews can pray, on his 2018 visit – ABIR SULTAN/AFP

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, closely 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.

Visit for Red Cross briefing

It was published moments before the Prince arrived at an engagement to hear from the British Red Cross teams on the front line 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 that the visit had not been deliberately timed. In fact, 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 somewhat different: YouGov polling tracks the public as significantly more likely to support a 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.

He thought about it, said it, and means it

Eugene Rogan, the 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.”

The statement’s eight short sentences were simple and to the point.

The only rhetorical flourish was a double reference to Winston Churchill: “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair.”

The first part is a reference to Churchill’s 1940 “finest hour” speech, in which the German invasion was called “the darkest hour in French history”. The second – “counsel of despair” – is a little-known quote from Churchill’s own 1937 paper on whether partition could bring peace to Palestine.

Whatever criticism or praise Prince William’s words inspire, this was not a statement composed on the hoof. He thought about it, said it and means it.

The next question, of whether he will make it a habit, will define his legacy.

%n

Discover Telegraph Wine Cellar’s new wine club. Enjoy expertly chosen bottles at exclusive member prices. Plus, free delivery on every order.