Kit Clarenberg

Mintpress News

One of the most extraordinary – yet unremarked upon – developments since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began has been the British monarchy’s brazen jettisoning of any pretense of “political neutrality.” Queen Elizabeth II, publicly at least, rigidly refrained from commenting on current affairs or giving the vaguest appearance of taking a particular “side” on any issue throughout her 70-year reign. However, her recently coronated heir has comprehensively consigned that convention to ashes.

Within hours of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood commencing, King Charles viciously condemned Hamas, saying that he was “profoundly distressed” and “appalled” by the “horrors inflicted” by the group and its “barbaric acts of terrorism.” Hamas is not recognized as a terrorist entity by the majority of countries, and even the BBC – which has relentlessly manufactured consent for genocide in Gaza since the violence erupted – rejects the use of that loaded, politicized designation.

During his lengthy spell as Prince of Wales, Charles was an inveterate meddler in the British government’s domestic and foreign policy in ways that were often far from discrete. Yet, he has remained largely silent since quietly becoming King in September 2022, then being formally crowned in May this year. His public statements are, therefore, highly significant and, what’s more, seemingly represent just the tip of a much larger intervention.

The Daily Telegraph has reported that behind the scenes, King Charles is “pushing for peace in the Middle East” using “soft power.” If so, these efforts have so far failed miserably. Israel’s murderous rampage in Gaza has only ratcheted in brutality since it commenced, the death toll rising by hundreds daily as civilian infrastructure is flattened by an inexorable aerial onslaught. Meanwhile, the threat of a full-blown ground invasion ever looms.

As such, it is only reasonable to ask whether Charles’ vision of “peace” in Gaza is, in fact, Palestine completely purged of Palestinians and if he has in any way encouraged the occupation government of Benjamin Netanyahu in its new attempt to recreate the Nakba. As we shall see, the King fully supports Zionism and the ideology’s genocidal objectives, and Britain’s military, intelligence agencies, and government dependably act upon his orders and according to his wishes.

A PROBLEM FOR PALESTINIANS’

Queen Elizabeth II never visited Israel. It was widely speculated that she was advised against doing so by the Foreign Office for fear of Arab boycotts of British goods and oil embargoes, which had crippled the country’s economy in late 1973. Yet, it has been suggested in some quarters that she privately harbored sympathy for the Palestinians and abhorred Zionist violence toward Arabs.

Come January 2020, with her health rapidly declining, Charles took on her official foreign visit responsibilities as de facto British head of state, and among his first ports of call was Israel. It wasn’t the first time he’d traveled to the country. Previously, he privately attended the funerals of former Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. His presence on both occasions was a closely guarded secret.

While on the trip, Charles declared it was his “dearest wish that the future will bring freedom, justice and equality to all Palestinians.” Yet, the details of his prior visits suggest this statement was not sincere. In 2016, while attending the funeral of Peres, he also visited the graves of his grandmother, Princess Alice, and her aunt, Grand Duchess Elisabeth, in a small Christian cemetery on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives, near the world’s largest Jewish cemetery.

Both were Christian Zionists, and their desire to be buried on the Mount reflects its significance to the movement. Despite lying in a part of the city claimed by Arabs as East Jerusalem, which is recognized by several countries as Palestine’s capital, it is considered to be among the holiest Jewish sites in the world and cited by Zionists as key proof that the territory comprising Israel as described in the Bible is the exclusive homeland of Jews.

The Jerusalem Post approvingly dubbed Charles’ Christian Zionist sympathies and familial connection to the Mount “a problem for Palestinians,” arguing the King has a clear conception of “who the city and the country belong to” as a result. Meanwhile, the Times of Israel has hailed him as “a friend” to Jewry “with special and historic ties to Israel.”

One such tie was a long-running and extremely close friendship with Britain’s former chief Rabbi and President of United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA), Jonathan Sacks. Upon his death in November 2020, Charles praised him as “a leader whose wisdom, scholarship and humanity were without equal”:

[…]

UJIA is one of Israel’s three national institutions and operates a number of programs to train Jews the world over to advance Zionist interests, starting in primary schools. Sacks was a fervent advocate of a similar Israeli government effort, known as Birthright, under which anyone anywhere in the world aged 18-26 who can prove Jewish heritage is given an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to rub shoulders with Occupation Forces be deluged with Zionist propaganda, and foster a personal connection with the country.

While highly controversial, Sacks considered Birthright “perhaps, the greatest single innovation in Jewish life in the past quarter century” for “strengthening [attendees’] links to the land, the State and the people of Israel.” His attempts to indoctrinate children in Zionism extended to serving on the board of One Voice, an astroturf anti-BDS lobbying group targeting schools.

With friends like Sacks, King Charles undoubtedly feels very strongly about who Jerusalem belongs to.

‘OBEDIENT SERVANT’

It is an open question whether the monarch’s affinity for Israel in any way accounts for the British government’s abandonment of its historical sympathy for the Arab world and modern-day accommodation with Zionism. A lie universally maintained by the mainstream media is the British monarchy’s powers in the 21st century are purely ceremonial. While the obsequious terminology “His/Her Majesty’s government” may be liberally used still, long gone are the days, it is alleged, when a King or Queen could overrule parliament’s will.

In reality, a little-known procedure known as “Queen’s Consent” means a King or Queen’s acquiescence to prospective laws must be sought by the British government before they can even be put to parliamentary vote. Moreover, under this convention, monarchs are alerted whenever legislation that could affect the royal prerogative or the British Crown’s private interests is in the offing. This stipulation not only produces a pronounced chilling effect on all laws and regulations elected governments draw up but frequently alters their composition in ways large and small.

For example, in February 2021, it was revealed that in the 1970s, Queen Elizabeth II pressured government ministers to amend transparency legislation to conceal her “embarrassing” wealth from the public. As a result, a clause was inserted granting companies used by “heads of state” exemptions from financial disclosures. The true scale of her riches remains unknown, although it has been estimated to run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

“Queen’s Consent” is not the only mechanism of political control in a British royal’s arsenal. In May 2015, over two dozen private communications between then-Prince Charles and British ministers were published after a decade-long legal struggle. Successive governments squandered hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep these letters private. The contents showed that Charles, in flagrant breach of “political neutrality,” had routinely petitioned elected representatives on subjects ranging from the Iraq War to alternative medicines over many years.

In one message, the then-heir to the British throne openly warned a health minister that “chickens will come home to roost” in their department if redevelopment of a hospital – in which the Prince’s architecture charity had an interest – was not accelerated. However, Charles didn’t typically rely on threats. Government officials were usually willing to obsequiously roll over whenever – and however – he ordered them to.

The release of these letters prompted speculation Charles would be far more outspoken and overtly meddlesome than his ostensibly taciturn mother upon taking the throne. Until Hamas struck Israel, these tendencies had not hitherto publicly emerged. However, it is somewhat inconceivable that since his coronation, he has not interfered in British politics in some way or other. We have no way of knowing, though, as in 2010, Britain’s Freedom of Information Act was amended to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests related to the royal family.

The connivances of British royalty are also protected by law throughout the Commonwealth. In 2020, after a four-year-long legal battle, the Australian government released correspondence exposing how Queen Elizabeth II was instrumental in the ouster of Canberra’s radical left-wing premier, Gough Whitlam, in November 1975. The papers showed that then-Prince Charles was a core conspirator in the coup, coordinating directly with Britain’s governor John Kerr – who dismissed the Prime Minister – before, during and after.

[…]

Via https://www.mintpressnews.com/is-zionist-king-charles-behind-israel-genocide-in-gaza/286185/