'I see the hand of Lord Cameron in all this': William's call for an end to Israeli war in Gaza may have been requested by the Foreign Secretary, royal biographer Tom Bower claims

Prince William's unprecedented intervention in the Middle East crisis may have been requested or influenced by the Foreign Secretary, royal biographer Tom Bower has claimed.

The Prince of Wales waded into the Gaza war by calling for an end to the fighting 'as soon as possible' in an extraordinary statement.

William last night highlighted the desperate need for more humanitarian aid for the civilians of Gaza and, notably, called on Hamas to release its remaining Israeli hostages.

The royal's carefully-chosen words are the strongest yet by a senior royal in response to Israel's devastating military action in Gaza following the sickening terror attacks of October 7.

Mr Bower has now suggested that Lord Cameron's 'hand' may have played a role in the intervention. The Foreign Secretary has previously urged Israel to implement a 'permanent ceasefire', sparking outrage among supporters of the Israeli offensive against Hamas.

And in a letter to MPs, Lord Cameron warned of the 'devastating humanitarian impacts' of an Israeli invasion of Rafah.

Speaking on GB News, Mr Bower told Nigel Farage: 'I see the hand of Lord Cameron in all this, who somehow has shifted into the side of telling Israel to stop to seek peace. But of course what Lord Cameron doesn't understand is you can't have peace with Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of every Jew that lives in Israel.

'There is no peace possible with people who are intent on the Final Solution Mk II and so I think it's been a disaster for Prince William to get involved in this. 

'I think that his officials in Kensington Palace should have warned him to stay out of it, because it can only end badly.'

In a letter to the Commons foreign affairs committee chairman Alicia Kearns, Lord Cameron said Israel must 'stop and think' about the repercussions of a military offensive. 

Mr Bower added that William should not have got involved on the eve of today's crunch Commons ceasefire debate. 

Speaking to Nigel Farage on GB News, he continued: 'There is no peace with Hamas. It is a terrorist organisation intends on destruction and murder. So, what on earth Prince William's advisors thought of adopting Lord Cameron's view and the government's view, it beggars belief where this could end up.

'Of course, the Queen would never have said anything like this. I don't even think that Prince Charles in his most reckless interventions into politics, at this very moment on the eve of the vote tomorrow, on the on the way the United Nations voted today, would have contributed to this debate.

'Prince William should have been silent. Nobody needs his contribution on this issue and by intervening, he has made that whole problem far worse, because he's politicised the whole issue as far as the monarchy is concerned.

'What on earth is Prince William doing getting involved in this very, very messy, controversial issue?'

The Foreign Office has been contacted for comment. 

Israeli chiefs are understood to have been caught off by the prince's intervention and The Telegraph reports they consider his public statement to be naive. The newspaper claims they are 'dismayed' but do not want to risk clashing with Britain's future King. 

It comes ahead of a crunch vote in the Commons today on a second SNP-led motion for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Last night, the UK Government put forward an amendment to counter the SNP's ceasefire motion in a move that could expose Labour splits over conflict.

Labour had looked to avoid another possible rebellion over the Israel-Hamas war by tabling its own amendment to the SNP motion.

Sir Keir Starmer's party yesterday publicly shifted its stance to back a call for an 'immediate humanitarian ceasefire', giving MPs who were unhappy with the leadership's previous handling of the issue a wording to rally behind.

But the Government's decision to table its own counter-amendment to the motion increases the likelihood that the Commons Speaker will not choose the Labour amendment for debate today.

It could leave Labour MPs with the choice between voting for the Government's position, which does not go as far as calling for an immediate ceasefire, and the SNP's stance.

The debate will be going on as thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators are expected to take part in a rally in Parliament Square on Wednesday.

Lisa Nandy, shadow international development minister, said Labour's proposal for a ceasefire differs from the SNP's by emphasising that it must be 'two-sided'.

She told Good Morning Britain: 'On the question of immediate ceasefire, there's no difference. We have used the language of our international 'Five Eyes' partners Australia, Canada and New Zealand who over the last few days have called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

'We think that adds weight to those calls, that the world is speaking with one voice as the ground invasion of Rafah is imminent and it must be averted.

'But there are significant differences between our proposition and the SNP's. We are clear that any ceasefire by definition must be two-sided, that Israel can't be expected to lay down its weapons if Hamas doesn't observe the terms of that ceasefire.

'The SNP motion is vague, whether deliberately or otherwise, on that point and we think it's extremely important that we send that message.'

She added that Labour's amendment also included a 'political horizon and a pathway to peace' in the long-term, which the SNP motion did not.

Prince William's public statement also came ahead of a visit by the Prince of Wales to the British Red Cross in London to discuss the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza and beyond.

His statement was issued with the knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and welcomed by Downing Street, which said his 'measured' call for an end to the fighting was in line with the Government's position.

Royal aides emphasised that it was the 'extent of the human suffering that is on display which had led him to make the statement he has today'.

They would not confirm whether it had the backing of the King. But father and son did meet in Norfolk at the weekend, where Charles is recuperating from cancer treatment.

However, the statement also puts the heir to the throne at risk of accusations of meddling.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resisted calls to halt his military action, making clear that he will not stop until Hamas, which is classed as a terror organisation by the UK Government, is destroyed and Gaza is demilitarised.

He is now planning to invade the city of Rafah, a move which the United States has condemned.

And today sees a contentious, and highly emotive, debate in Parliament over the conflict.

Last night some Tory MPs criticised William, with suggestions that he risked undermining 'the underlying principle of our constitutional monarchy'.

Israel's government spokesman Eylon Levy issued a more diplomatic response to the Prince's intervention, saying: 'Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled.

'We appreciate the Prince of Wales' call for Hamas to free the hostages. We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas's terror attacks and reaffirming Israel's right of self-defence against them.'

Sources close to the heir to the throne acknowledged that the issues surrounding the crisis are highly politicised. But they stressed that having undertaken a well received visit to both Israel and the West Bank in 2018, William had been following events closely.

They said he had thought 'long and hard' about whether to say anything, but felt the overwhelming humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region required him to speak out.

So far, according to the Hamas-controlled Gaza health ministry, almost 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza and a further 1.7million displaced, out of a population of two million. Hamas murdered almost 1,200 Israeli and foreign nationals on October 7, and took almost 250 hostages.

Royal aides insisted that William's words should not be taken as a call for an immediate ceasefire or a comment on the issue of a 'two state' solution, but as an instinctive reaction to monumental loss of life both as a human being and 'as a father'.

Many royal insiders see the statement as an example of William's distinct vision for the monarchy and his desire to speak his mind on the issues that matter. Sources close to the prince have long told the Mail that he believes the institution 'needs to better explain its own thinking, particularly in terms of its place in the world'.

The Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis shared William's statement online and wrote: 'Since his visit to the region in 2018, the Prince of Wales has shown a deep concern for the well-being of all those affected by the conflict in the Middle East and his words of compassion today, which I welcome, are yet further evidence of this'

However, Tory peer Stewart Jackson described the Prince's intervention as 'ill-timed and ill-judged'.

Conservative MP Andrew Percy, vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-Semitism, said: 'The underlying principle of our constitutional monarchy is that members of the Royal Family do not engage in contentious political issues of the day on which there are divergent and strongly held beliefs in this country.'

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage said on X, formerly Twitter: 'I'm not sure that our future King should be doing this. He should stick to the Baftas.'

William's visit to the Red Cross was one of two engagements – the other to a synagogue next week – designed to recognise 'human suffering' from all sides as a result of the current conflict.

During the visit William spoke via video link to Pascal Hundt, senior crisis manager with the International Committee of the Red Cross, who is currently in Gaza. As he left the building there were two cries of 'free Palestine' from an otherwise enthusiastic crowd.

No 10 was informed in advance of the prince's statement, and the Prime Minister is said to have told colleagues that the points made by William reflected his own views.

A Whitehall source said the prince's comments would add momentum to the search for peace. 'Whenever the Royals speak, people listen,' the source said.