Was king charles iii pro Palestinian, and thought the genocide from Isreal is a waste of money and time?
Executive summary
King Charles III has publicly expressed sympathy for Palestinian suffering and a commitment to a two-state solution, while repeatedly condemning Hamas’s October 7 attacks and expressing support for Israel’s right to self‑defence [1] [2] [3]. There is no credible sourcing in the provided results that he ever said the “genocide from Israel is a waste of money and time”; that phrase does not appear in current reporting (available sources do not mention that exact claim).
1. Public posture: sympathetic to Palestinians, yet condemning Hamas and supporting Israel’s right to self‑defence
Reporting shows Charles has met leaders and visited both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, has said he is “heartbroken” by Palestinian suffering and has worked to show balance by also condemning the “barbaric acts of terrorism” committed by Hamas and acknowledging Israel’s right to self‑defence [1] [4] [3]. The Palace released statements expressing appalled condemnation of the October 2023 Hamas attacks and, separately, the King has engaged with Palestinian charities and leaders to discuss humanitarian needs [1] [5] [4].
2. Evidence of engagement, not partisan campaigning
Charles’s record is of diplomatic engagement: official visits where he met President Reuven Rivlin and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and reported willingness to meet Palestinian leadership if he visits again in future [6] [1]. The King hosted charity leaders dealing with Gaza humanitarian needs, signaling concern for civilian suffering rather than taking an overtly partisan political line [5].
3. Constitutional and diplomatic constraints on royal statements
The King speaks in a constitutional role where overt political positions by the sovereign are constrained; coverage frames his comments as expressions of sympathy and calls for peace rather than policy prescriptions. For example, the King’s Speech — delivered in parliament’s ceremonial context — reiterates government commitment to a two‑state solution rather than the monarch advancing unilateral policy [2]. This context limits how far public royal remarks can go without provoking controversy [6].
4. What sources explicitly report and what they do not
Multiple mainstream outlets cite Charles’s sorrow over Palestinian suffering and his condemnation of Hamas attacks; they document meetings with Israeli and Palestinian figures and charity groups [4] [1] [5]. None of the supplied sources record him saying Israel’s actions constitute a “genocide” or that such an alleged genocide is “a waste of money and time.” The provocative claim in that exact wording appears to be unsupported in the provided reporting (available sources do not mention that exact phrasing).
5. Competing narratives in commentary and opinion pieces
Opinion and activist outlets advance stronger claims about Charles’s sympathies or alleged biases. For instance, a conspiratorial piece accuses the King of secretly supporting harsh outcomes for Palestinians — an assertion framed as speculation and ideology rather than sourced fact [7]. Conversely, opinion columns in outlets like The Jerusalem Post argue the King is problematic for Palestinians because of perceived Christian‑Zionist leanings [8]. These are interpretations, not direct documentary evidence of the quoted claim.
6. Key facts the public can verify in the record
Confirmed by multiple outlets: the King condemned Hamas’s October 7 attacks as “barbaric” [1] [3]; he has said he is “heartbroken” over Palestinian suffering and has engaged with Palestinian figures and charities [4] [5]. The King’s Speech records support for a two‑state solution and frames the UK government’s role in seeking peace [2].
7. Limits of available reporting and recommended next steps
Current reporting in the provided set does not support the quoted accusation about Charles calling an Israeli “genocide” a waste of money and time; that is an extraordinary allegation that would require a direct quote or official record (available sources do not mention that allegation). To substantiate or refute it fully, consult primary sources: Buckingham Palace statements, the King’s letters and speeches, and direct transcripts from meetings, or rely on major news outlets’ verbatim quotations.
Summary: the documented public record shows a monarch seeking to balance expressions of sorrow for Palestinians with clear condemnation of Hamas and recognition of Israel’s security concerns [1] [4] [2]. Claims that he labeled any Israeli actions “genocide” or dismissed such an accusation in the terms you quoted are not found in the supplied sources.