Outrage Follows "Jaw-Droppingly Shocking" 1986 Prince Charles Letter Blaming Mid-East Problems On "Foreign Jews"

Prince Charles has sparked media outrage following a report he wrote a letter blaming "the influx of foreign, European Jews" for aggravating the Arab-Israeli conflict and leading to general unrest in the Middle East, while also asking whether an American president would "have the courage" to take on "the Jewish lobby" to put an end to terrorism in the region.

The note, written on November 24, 1986, was found in a public archive and published Saturday by the Daily Mail. The Prince penned the letter after official visits to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar with Princess Diana.

"I now appreciate that Arabs and Jews were all a Semitic people originally,” the then 38-year-old Prince of Wales wrote in his letter, adding, that “it is the influx of foreign, European Jews (especially from Poland, they say) which has helped to cause great problems” in the Middle East. “I know there are so many complex issues, but how can there ever be an end to terrorism unless the causes are eliminated?” he questioned.

"Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” he concludes.

The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, described Charles’ comments “both shocking and entirely predictable.”

"To me this is the most astonishing element of the Prince’s letter. The “Jewish lobby” is one of the anti-Semitic themes that have endured for centuries. It is this myth there are these very powerful Jews who control foreign policy or the media or banks or whatever."  Pollard then told the daily mail that the letter was "jaw-droppingly shocking" and added that "[the Prince’s comments] come from the heir to the throne is unsettling, to put it mildly."

While the letter is inflammatory, there is no suggestion Charles holds anti-Semitic views according to The Mail: "He has many prominent Jewish friends and in 2013 became the first Royal to attend a chief rabbi’s inauguration ceremony. In a speech that year, he expressed concern at the apparent rise of anti-Semitism in Britain."

At the same time, he is seen as a defender of Islam, with one historian noting that no other major Western figure has as high a standing in the Muslim world. 


It has also been suggested he has pro-Palestinian leanings, a perception the letter appears to support.

Prince Charles is not the first one to fall in the "lobby" spotlight: among those to come under fire for using the term ‘Jewish lobby’ are General George Brown, the highest-ranking military officer in the US as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was publicly rebuked and disowned by President Gerald Ford in 1974 after claiming that a ‘Jewish lobby’ controlled Congress, according to The Daily Mail. Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage was criticised earlier this month when he referred to ‘a powerful Jewish lobby’ in the US.  In 2006, Chris Davies, former leader of the Lib Dem MEPs, was forced to resign after he used the term. Archbishop Desmond Tutu also came under fire when he used the phrase in a newspaper article in 2002.

The Prince’s reference in the letter to the influx of European Jews also caused dismay.

It is not clear if he is referring to immigration before or after the Second World War, or both. Mr Pollard said: ‘It is the absolute classic Arab explanation of the problems in the Middle East.


'And it is what everyone has always said the British aristocracy actually thinks – the idea that Jews were some kind of foreigners who had no real place in Israel until we decided to make it their homeland. Historically it is nonsense and it’s quite stunning when it comes from the heir to the throne.’


A senior Israeli diplomatic source said last night: ‘He [Charles] was travelling around the Gulf states [just before he wrote the controversial letter], which in those years were very anti-Israel. It seems he was presented with a narrative in a very convincing way.’

Earlier this month, Britain marked the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, the document that paved the way for the state of Israel, with a gala dinner in London attended by Theresa May and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is also not the first time Prince Charles has gotten in hot water for controversial remarks: In 2007, leaked emails between senior Clarence House staff put Charles at the centre of a row about the Royals’ attitude towards the Jewish state.

* * *

Attempting some damage control, a spokesman for Clarence House said the thoughts revealed in the 1986 letter, were actually “not The Prince’s own views.”

“The letter clearly states these were not the Prince’s own thinking on Arab-Israeli affairs, but represented the opinions of some of those he met during his visit which he was keen to interrogate,” the statement said. It added that Prince Charles "was sharing the arguments in private correspondence with a long standing friend in an attempt to improve his understanding of what he has always recognized is a deeply complex issue to which he was coming early on in his own analysis in 1986," the representative said.

"Over the years, the prince has continued his study of the complex and difficult themes he referenced here. He has built a proven track record of support for both Jewish and Arab communities around the world and has a long history of promoting interfaith dialogue and cultural understanding," she added.


Déjà view Battleaxe Mon, 11/13/2017 - 00:20 Permalink

Zionist Hasbara trolls have everyone keeping their eye on Soros...while Zionist Adelson herding his goyim sheep does an end-around ! This Powerful Adelson-funded Israel Lobby Could Soon Rival AIPAC’s Influence in Washington Thousands will descend on D.C. this weekend to mark the 10th anniversary of the Israeli-American Council. But some early supporters warn its growth comes with a priceAmir Tibon (Washington) Oct 31, 2017 4:53 PMhttps://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.819705

In reply to by Battleaxe

Mustahattu CheapBastard Mon, 11/13/2017 - 01:39 Permalink

The Brits actually tried to restrict jewish immigration from Europe. But they were overwhelmed by the influx. Hundreds of british soldiers died at the hands of jews in Palestine during the insurgency up till 1948. There were anti-Jewish rioting across the UK after the war that threatened US relationships.It was US policy that focused on helping jews escape Europe by moving them through US zones as the British zones were closed or had strict quotas for jewish immigrants. So it's actually the US that created Israel.

In reply to by CheapBastard

Déjà view QueeroHedge Mon, 11/13/2017 - 03:05 Permalink

Nixon tried...along came his setup...

The National Archives released on October 5, 1999, 445 hours of tapes recorded by President Richard Nixon in which he repeatedly lashes out against Jews and makes anti-Semitic remarks. Appearing to view "the Jews" as the root of all his problems, Nixon complained that Washington "is full of Jews" and that "most Jews are disloyal."

Nixon did believe that top aides Henry Kissinger, Leonard Garment and William Safire were exceptions, but he said to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, "generally speaking you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?" Haldeman agreed. Nixon told Haldeman that the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

After a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was released showing that unemployment was rising, Nixon wanted to fire the agency's director, Julius Shiskin. He asked Charles Colson to investigate the ethnicity of officials at the Bureau. "They are all Jews?" Nixon asked when Colson gave him a list of names.

On another occasion, Nixon and Haldeman discussed Jewish penetration of the National Security Council staff. Nixon asked if Tony Lake, then an aide to Kissinger, was Jewish. Nixon thought he looked Jewish. Lake, who served as Clinton's National Security Adviser is not Jewish.

When a survey was released in 1971 showing that a majority of the supporters of antiwar demonstrations came from affluent neighborhoods in Washington, Nixon attributed the results to the Jews. "Bob," he told Haldeman, "there's a lot of Jews in the District, see...The gentiles have moved out.


In reply to by QueeroHedge

JSBach1 Déjà view Mon, 11/13/2017 - 00:48 Permalink

Fuck the Jewish, or any other foreign lobby within congress!!!

Is there any room or ANY thought given to a US lobby for its own citizens EVER?!?!? Of course not.....

An anecdote, which parallels this injustice, is in order here perhaps...If I am silenced, or you do not hear from me, then you can ascertain that the "new" ZH (((ownership))) has been bought-out and therefore comprised:....

I recently turned a co-worker on to ZH; as such, that person registered on th ZH, and was emailed that registration takes anywhere from 5-7 days to complete...

After a week, then a week-and-a-half, and even after more than two weeks after the initial registration this person wrote to BOTH info@zerohedge.com AND complains@zerohedge.com but was stonewalled in both cases by these moderators. So, then the next logical guestion arise, given the myriad of recent hasbra troll accounts that have been given free-passage and seemigly free-passage-to-membership for some strange reason...

Has anyone else notice the new-arrival and sheer number of accounts that aspouse the hasbara-line?

As such, one should question and pry-open the real real reasons ZH was aquired by ABC media, and whose behind this aquasition?

I say to you: be wary of what you say -- free speech be damded except for those few, whose PR campaign is not only unabridged, but seems emboldened as a result -- by this newly found owner who is in charge of your personal information, which could be used against you in any number of ways.

If you hear no further correspondence from me or notice some inexplicable innamolities tjen you know why..

In reply to by Déjà view

fleur de lis tenpanhandle Sun, 11/12/2017 - 23:37 Permalink

The MSM will tear Prince Charles to shreads for having his own mild opinion.There was nothing hostile in his words.He showed himself to be open-minded in his reading the Koran to get a better idea about the Arabs and their way of thinking.Would that our stupid and biased MSM were so open minded.And he only mentioned the transfer of European Jews in terms of how it affected the conflict.Isn't is interesting how Stephen Pollard can attack Prince Charles over a mild opinion written decades earlier, but he has yet to react in a similar way to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the murders of her wounded crew as they were being lowered into the water in life boats.If Pollard wants to be jaw droppinly shocked about something he should read Adm. Kidd's report or Capt. Boston's statement regarding Israel's attack on the ship.http://ifamericaknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html  

In reply to by tenpanhandle