Prince of Wales hosts Palestinian aid workers
The Prince of Wales has hosted Palestinian aid workers, after revealing concern over suffering in the Middle East.
The Prince met with representatives from the British Red Cross and Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) on Thursday.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza, which is at the forefront of both charities' operations, is likely to have been a key topic of conversation.
The Prince, who is increasingly positioning himself as a global statesman, has closely followed developments in Israel and Gaza since the Hamas terror attack on Oct 7 2023.
A Kensington Palace spokesman said on Friday: 'The Prince of Wales continues to follow the humanitarian situation in the Middle East closely.'
More than 1,600 staff and volunteers from the PRCS have been working to provide life-saving support in Gaza, distributing emergency relief items, and providing medical support to more than 100,000 people.
In March, eight PRCS medics were killed while on duty in Gaza, and one of their colleagues is still missing. The charity has warned that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is 'unbearable' and rapidly deteriorating.
In February 2024, the Prince called for an end to the fighting in a strongly-worded intervention that risked sparking a diplomatic rift with Israel.
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 warned that ' too many have been killed ', urging more humanitarian aid and the release of hostages as he called for 'an end to the fighting as soon as possible'.
'Brighter future'
Invoking Sir 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 No 10, which said the nation should speak with 'one voice'.
The Prince previously joined a synagogue discussion with young campaigners against hatred, in the wake of a sharp rise in anti-Semitism caused by the ongoing violence.
In October 2023, the Prince and Princess of Wales condemned Hamas's 'appalling terrorist attack upon Israel', warning that all Israelis and Palestinians would be 'stalked by grief, fear and anger' as 'Israel exercises its right of self defence'.
The King condemned the 'barbaric acts of terrorism', and was said to be 'extremely concerned' about the conflict, asking to be kept abreast of developments.
Later that month, the monarch, who is president of the British Red Cross, hosted representatives from five charities operating in the Middle East, including Gaza, to 'discuss the acute humanitarian situation'.
He also held talks with Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the UK's chief rabbi, to discuss the impact on the Jewish population in the UK.
The British Red Cross said at the time that the King had made a 'generous donation' to its Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territory fundraising appeal.
In 2018, The Prince of Wales made a four-day visit to Israel and Palestine, expressing his own hopes for 'lasting peace' in the region.
It was the first official trip by a member of the monarchy to Israel and the Occupied West Bank and, during his visit, he sat down for separate talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
GHF boss defends Gaza aid operation after hundreds of Palestinians killed near sites
The head of a controversial US and Israeli-backed aid group has defended its work after repeated incidents of killings and injuries of Palestinians seeking Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) boss Johnnie Moore told the BBC World Service's Newshour he was not denying deaths near aid sites, but said "100% of those casualties are being attributed to close proximity to GHF" and that was "not true". He accused the UN and other international organisations of spreading information they could not verify. The GHF aid system has been condemned by UN agencies, and on Friday UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres branded it "inherently unsafe". "Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarized zones is inherently unsafe. The search for food must never be a death sentence," the UN chief Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and 4,000 injured on their way to get aid since GHF took over aid days of GHF operations starting in late May, dozens of Palestinians were killed in separate incidents on 1 and 3 June, sparking international condemnation. Since then, the UN and aid groups have expressed alarm at the near-daily reports of Palestinians being killed near the GHF's sites, which are inside Israeli military and medics have on several occasions described Israeli forces opening fire on crowds near aid newspaper Haaretz published a story on Friday in which unnamed IDF soldiers said they were ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians near aid distribution sites, to drive them away or disperse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly rejected the report calling the allegations "malicious falsehoods".In a statement to the BBC, the IDF said it "did not instruct the forces to deliberately shoot at civilians, including those approaching the distribution centres".It added it was looking to improve "the operational response" in the aid areas and had recently added new fencing and signage, and opened new routes to reach the handout his part, the head of the GHF said "100% of the casualties are being attributed to the IDF - as best as we can tell that's also not true".In statements over the past month, the IDF have several times said they fired "warning shots" at individuals who they described as "suspects" or claimed posed a threat."We spend an extended period of time trying to understand what actually happened, if anything actually happened and whether there's a way that we can make it less likely to happen," Mr Moore said."In most circumstances we haven't been able to identify anything happening.""People need to understand that it is disinformation that people going to GHF sites are being killed, we have no evidence of that happening in proximity to our sites," he does not allow international news organisations, including the BBC, to send journalists into Gaza, which limits our ability to verify what is happening on the ground in the territory. Mr Moore alleged that prior to GHF's operations the majority of UN aid trucks were being hijacked at UN has said there is no evidence for a large-scale hijacking of its aid trucks. When told this, Mr Moore said the "UN is not being honest".The volume of aid entering Gaza is still considered inadequate, despite Israel last month partially easing an 11-week blockade introduced in March. Experts have warned the territory remains on the brink of GHF is hoping to reach the milestone of providing 50 million meals in Gaza, which would equate to less than a meal a day per person since operations pushed on whether food was really getting to the people who needed it most, Mr Moore admitted the operation was "inefficient", but said 50 million meals was more than had been available a month said the GHF needs to scale up and hopefully work with organisations such as the UN."The mission is clear. We just want to feed Gazans," he Thursday, the US State Department announced $30m (£22m; €26m) in funding for the GHF, which is its first known direct contribution to the group. The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken than 56,000 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Is Trump now more likely to use military force?
Has US President Donald Trump found a new security doctrine with big air strikes taking the place of conventional wars? Should other countries expect more of this from the American military? Even though we don't have all the information yet, President Trump has suffered very little blowback and won considerable praise for his actions last weekend. In the aftermath of the strikes, US Vice President JD Vance took to social media to say that "we are seeing a foreign policy doctrine develop that will change the country (and the world) for the better," adding that the US will use "overwhelming force" if necessary in the future. Iran has barely responded and the US public hasn't taken to the streets in protest, despite the fact that polls show Americans are fed up with military entanglements in the Middle East. So, it's worth asking whether this mission will lead President Trump to move away from diplomacy and embrace more of this sort of military action moving forward. Or, was the hit against Iran's nuclear programme really just a one-off, an exception to his isolationist tendencies? I recently put that question to Richard Haass, a veteran US diplomat who has advised four presidents. Haass spent 20 years as president of the Council on Foreign Relations and is the author of more than a dozen books. He now writes the weekly newsletter Home & Away. You can watch – or read – more of our conversation below. Below is an excerpt from our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity. Katty Kay: Richard, I wanted to frame this conversation in the context of what this strike on Iran means for Trump and his appetite, potentially, for these kinds of military strikes moving forward. Do you think he risks paying a price either here or abroad for airstrikes of this nature? Richard Haass: I'm not sure how replicable it is in other circumstances. The only area where he may have done himself a slight disservice is in perhaps potentially exaggerating what they've accomplished, using words like "obliteration". Even if we destroyed a lot, we don't know how much material, enriched uranium, centrifuges the Iranians may have parked elsewhere. So, I think he has to be a little bit careful that he doesn't oversell this as a mission accomplished, problem solved. But other than that, I think he's OK because, one, it was limited. Two, a lot of people would say Iran had it coming in the sense that it had misled the IAEA inspectors for a long time. No one on God's green Earth thought what the Iranians were doing was enriching uranium to generate electricity. So, I think people had just gotten tired of the whack-a-mole or kind-of cat-and-mouse game with the Iranians. But again, I'm not sure this approach is replicable in terms of other countries potentially going nuclear, if it comes to that, or other situations. It doesn't lend itself to Ukraine. It doesn't lend itself to something with Taiwan or North Korea. I'm not sure this is a model or a template for American foreign policy going forward. KK: If you were looking at this and had some concerns about this approach and that this might embolden President Trump to think, "Right, I found a new way of conducting American national security policy," you seem to be suggesting that actually this might not embolden him to think, "I'm going to use strikes like this again elsewhere." RH: I really don't see it for a couple of reasons. One is his MAGA base. Their enthusiasm for this is constrained. I think in some ways he got through this one. They don't like to challenge him, but also it was bookended in terms of scale and time. I'm a little bit hard-pressed when I look at the menu of things the United States faces. How many situations are analogous to this? I don't see too many. North Korea has passed this point in terms of its nuclear and missile programs, plus it has this massive conventional force. So, a use of force against North Korea could well lead to a second Korean War. That's not in Mr. Trump's playbook. He doesn't want direct confrontation with China or Russia if he could avoid it. He's talked about certain things in this hemisphere, but he's not going to attack Canada. He's not going to attack Mexico. I doubt he's going to do anything with Panama or Greenland. I just don't see it. KK: In your experience working in presidential administrations, does having some kind of military success tend to give presidents a feeling that it's worth trying for something else, whether it's these massive airstrikes or not? Let's say he really did want to take Greenland. Does what's happened in Iran over the last five days make him feel emboldened to put pressure on Denmark to give us Greenland? And other countries can now look at President Trump and say, "Wow, this guy actually means what he says, and he's not afraid to use force." RH: My short answer is: I hope not. What was unique about Iran is they were something of a pariah, and there was a very limited specific target set, which many people were quite sympathetic to our attacking. I don't see any of that analogous in Greenland. You also can't attack the Panama Canal in order to gain control of it. Let me take a different president: George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president. He used force quite successfully in the Gulf War. Yet, he was quite hesitant later on to use force in the Balkans. So, it obviously depends on the president. And this president tends to go more by his gut than he does with careful interagency analysis. It's really a top-down administration, much more than a bottom-up one. That's not a criticism. It's just an observation. But I would be nervous if too many people around him, much less himself, thought that this was a formula that could be easily applied elsewhere. Whether you think about tariffs or these strikes or pulling out of an international arrangement or doing something else, this is not an isolationist presidency. The more I look at Trump 2.0, the more I see it as unilateralist, having a very narrow sense of what is America first and then applying it. The word I keep coming back to is "unsentimental". If you're a friend, you shouldn't necessarily assume that it buys you anything. And if you're a foe, you may be treated in a very open way. It's a surprisingly unbiased foreign policy, which I've never quite seen before. KK: Do you still think that Trump himself is isolationist? You talked about the MAGA base being so, but from what he has done so far, would you call Trump himself an isolationist? RH: Probably not. I would say more unilateral than isolationist. He has an allergy of sorts to big, open-ended military interventions. He has a narrower view of US interests. But he's used force several times. He's certainly not isolationist in the diplomatic sense, whether it's using tools like tariffs or sanctions or launching this or that proposal. So no, I don't think isolationism captures his foreign policy. KK: You mentioned that you see this administration as a very top-down administration. What strikes me about the last couple of days, Richard, is the degree to which we have seen people around the president falling over themselves to flatter him. What are the risks of that approach? RH: The downside of it is just what you would think: I wonder how many people tell the president what he doesn't want to hear. How many people speak truth to power, saying, "Hey boss, if you do something this way, you may be creating problems for yourself down the road." I don't see a lot of people doing that. The reading I get is that a lot of individuals are worried about losing access or losing jobs. That's unfortunate, because the president won't be well served by that. For any CEO, whether you're president of the United States or president of a company, it's important to hear things you need to hear, rather than want to hear. Sometimes, you need to be saved from yourself. You never want to be surprised when you're president. That's my bottom line. You never want to be surprised by what something triggers or costs. And I worry that this president is not going to get that kind of advice, certainly from his staff. I think foreign leaders are worried that if they antagonise him – everybody saw what happened to President Zelensky – I think they're worried that if they press their case too far, the bilateral relationship or their personal relationship will suffer. I always thought the characteristic of a good relationship is not how often you agree, but it's your ability to disagree. I worry that if that goes away, then in many cases, the president simply won't have the benefit of hearing what he needs to hear. --
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Reckless pro-Palestine protesters break into warehouse and damage nearly £1m of military equipment destined for UKRAINE
The firm's CEO said they hadn't supplied Israel in over two decades PUTIN'S USEFUL IDIOTS Reckless pro-Palestine protesters break into warehouse and damage nearly £1m of military equipment destined for UKRAINE Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A SWARM of pro-Palestinian protesters caused nearly £1million worth of damage to military equipment which had been earmarked for Ukraine. Some 150 dim-witted activists wielding hammers and spray paint went on a warehouse rampage - reportedly causing severe damage to several tanks. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 CEO of OIP Land Systems Freddy Versluys said the vandals caused severe damage to the tanks at his warehouse (pictured) Credit: Reuters 4 Pro-Palestine protesters smashed up computers and damaged the facility (stock) Credit: Reuters 4 The firm has provided around 260 armoured vehicles to Ukraine since Putin's invasion Credit: Getty They raided hangars and smashed up computers at the facility in Belgium owned by OIP Land Systems - who produce military equipment for Ukraine. But the idiotic protesters, dressed in white overalls and masks, wrongly believed that the equipment was being shipped to Israel, 7sur7 reported. Taking part in the Stop Arming Israel campaign, they first broke into and ransacked the warehouse's offices in Tournai. The dopey demonstrators then headed for the storage units before vandalising the facility and the critical equipment inside it. READ MORE WORLD NEWS SHELL SHOCKED Russians advance slower than a SNAIL with 50k pinned down in 'dronegrinder' They brought along disc cutters and hammers during the frenzy on Monday which "severely damaged some vehicles", the firm's CEO Freddy Verslyus said. He branded the group of vandals "Hamas sympathisers". The next shipment of military aid which - was reserved specifically to help Volodymyr Zelensky fend off Russia's meatgrinder invasion - has now been delayed. OIP Land Systems specialises in the maintenance, repair, and modernisation of military vehicles. Since the Vladimir Putin's bloody invasion, the company has already delivered around 260 armoured vehicles to the Ukrainian army. Versluys said: "The next delivery is now delayed by at least a month. Vladimir Putin rages 'all of Ukraine is ours' as he threatens to seize key city while Kyiv slams tyrant as 'deranged' "That's all these Hamas sympathisers will have achieved with their actions." The fuming CEO also announced his intention to file a complaint against unknown parties following the huge £1million damage bill. The military company was reportedly targeted by the protesters because it is owned by Israeli defence company Elbit Systems. The activists reportedly believe that Elbit supplies 85 per cent of the Israel Defence Force's drones, and most of their ground military equipment. But the raging protesters were left mortified after the firm's CEO claimed that his company had not produced defence systems for Israel in over 20 years. At least 30 people were arrested following the embarrassing raid, Stop Arming Israel said. Tournai police arrived to the scene supported by Borinage cops who also came with riot control vehicles. A helicopter was also scrambled during the mindless rampage. Some activists fled to neighbouring villages in order to escape, before being chased down by cops. OIP Land Systems has provided defence products to Ukraine on several occasions. The military equipment provided includes Leopard 1 tanks, which are manufactured at the Tournai plant. It comes after two pro-Palestine activists broke into an RAF base and vandalised two planes in a "grotesque" breach of security. The men were seen breaking into RAF Brize Norton in a video shared online by group Palestine Action. The UK's defence ministry slammed the "vandalism of Royal Air Force assets" in a scathing statement.
