Back to blog

Britain’s future king faces up to Jerusalem’s religious politics

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


I guess that it won't be easy for the future king to stay neutral and objective in Jerusalem’s religious politics regardless what his ancestors and relatives did or said about it. Since there are theories that he is related also to prophet Muhammad he must be twice careful when dealing with the West Wall.


The British took territory that was meant to be part of the Arab/ Jewish mandate in Palestine and created their own little puppet state called Trans Jordan (later called Jordan), therefore reducing the land available for a two state solution (then it was called partition).
When Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948 only the British accepted this annexation and accepted it was part of Jordan, thereby eliminating any chance of a Palestinian state there at that time.
Of course once Israel took this territory after defeating Jordan in the Six Day war it magically became 'the occupied territories' in British eyes.
The moral to this is not to expect to much from the British - they care not for Arabs or Jews but only their own self interests - like all the rest of our wonderful global community. But the British always have the knack of seeming so much more moral and caring than the rest.


A brilliantly written piece, in view of a most sensitive subject for many monotheistic religionists.
In particular, admire the multi-color palette in the opening and second paragraph.