The Surafend Affair

Sofia Berg

On 10 December, 1918, the village of Surafend and a

nearby Bedouin camp were burned to the ground, their
male inhabitants slaughtered by a group of Anzac soldiers
who were being led by General Edmund Allenby. The
women and children of the village were left without
husbands, sons, and fathers, and the Anzacs were left with
a stain on their otherwise positive reputation.

n 1915, during World War I, The

ANZAC mounted riflemen were
placed in Palestine under the
supervision of British authorities.
While in Palestine, the New Zealand
Mounted Rifle Brigade was essentially a
fighting unit from start to finish (Moore),
although the fighting did not total over
20,000 which is an indication that the
Anzac soldiers were mainly placed in
Palestine as a defence force. The first
priority for the British upon the outbreak of
wat between the British and Ottoman
Empires [in 1914] was the defence of Egypt
and the Suez Canal (McGibbon), which
was what the British intended when they
placed the Anzac soldiers in Palestine near
the end of the War.
While they were in Palestine, the Anzac
soldiers experienced many petty crimes such
as thefts (and even, in some cases, murders)
committed by the locals. The soldiers
suffered through this without the
opportunity of redress [by the authorities]
throughout the Campaign (Moore) and this

proved to result in the tragedy of the

Surafend Affair.

S o fi a B e r g : T h e S u r a f e n d A ff a i r | 2

There is some debate over

whether or not the affair
was justified, but it is clear
that it has had a lasting
impact on New Zealands
military history.
So, what was the Surafend
Affair?

he Surafend
massacre (also
known as the
Surafend Affair),
which occurred on 10
December, 1918 during the
first World War, was
historically significant in
regards to the reputation it
Photograph of Lesley Lowrys
Headstone
left of the Anzac Mounted Division and the
effect it had on the Palestinian village of
Surafend and the nearby Bedouin camp that
was included in the massacre.
On the night of 9 December, 1918, Trooper
Leslie Lowry of the New Zealand Machine
Gun Squadron (Kinloch) was awoken by a
man trying to pull his kit bag out from under
his head. He chased the man out of the tent
and was shot by the theif. He was found
lying in the sand, bleeding from a bullet
wound to the chest (Kinloch) and died as a
doctor arrived. Although no one actually
saw the murderer, the men of Lowrys unit
reportedly found footprints leading from the
scene of the crime to the village of Surafend.
This suggests that, although the evidence
seemed conclusive, the soldiers essentially

just assumed that this was

where the murderer was
from. They then informed
their superiors and waited
for them to take command
of the village and handing
out punishment to whoever
committed the crime.
Those in charge of the
punishment did nothing to
investigate the crime,
however, and the soldiers
grew increasingly
frustrated. Finally, on the
evening of 10 December
after nothing had been done,
the men took matters into
their own hands.. [and] two
hundred men, armed with
pick handles, bayonets, or iron strips
wrapped in puttees or sacks encircled the
village at 8 pm (Kinloch). Although there is
some dispute over who participated in the
massacre, most conclude that the New
Zealanders were aided by British and
Australian soldiers as well. This group
ordered the women and children to leave the
village (McGibbon) and the proceeded to
wreak havoc on the men of the village:
many Arabs were killed, few escaped
without injury; the village was demolished
and burnt to the ground. Then, having
finished with Surafend, [the Anzacs] raided
and burned the neighbouring nomad camp
before retreating back to their lines.
(Gullett).
The next day, General Headquarters
demanded that the men in charge of leading
the group step forward and accept

S o fi a B e r g : T h e S u r a f e n d A ff a i r | 3

responsibility;
This seemed, even to the
Picture of the Village of
however, the Anzacs
division, to be very light
stood firm; not a single individual could
punishment, yet their resentment toward
definitely be charged (Gullett). The fact
their British superiors intensified because of
that no one specifically could be blamed for
it.
the massacre prevented any real disciplinary
Was the attack justified?
action against the soldiers. Instead, the
Commander-In-Chief, General Allenby,
he news of the attack on
reprimanded the men, using strong, and
Surafend was suppressed by the
even ill-considered language [that] left
media, as it looked bad for the
the division sore but unpunished (Gullett).
Anzac soldiers. Those
Although there had been some talk of
publications that did publicize the incident
revoking their honors, none of the men were
wrote it off to look like the Arabs deserved
even court marshaled.
it. For instance, HS Gullett states that all
the Arabs of western Palestine were thieves
by instinct and exploited their licesne to
The men took matters into their
extreme limits. He goes on to state that [the
own hands.. [and] two hundred
soldiers] felt that, while wreaking vengeance
men, armed with pick handles,
on the Arabs, they would at the same time
bayonets, or iron strips wrapped
work off their old feeling against the bias of
in puttees or sacks encircled the
the disciplinary branch of General
village at 8 pm
Headquarters, and its studied omission to
punish Arabs for crime. (gullet) This
demonstrates how incredibly biased the
news of the affair wasno one seemed to

S o fi a B e r g : T h e S u r a f e n d A ff a i r | 4

place any responsibility on the soldiers at

the time. By stating that the Arabs were
naturally dishonest, Gullett even suggests
that they deserved to be killed in such an
unfair way.
Although it was the Anzac soldiers who
ultimately killed the men in the village of
Surafend, Gullet does have a point when he
states that the disciplinary branch of General
Headquarters avoided punishing the locals
for crimes. This lack of disciplinary action
had been going on since the Anzac soldiers
first arrived in Palestine, so it is
understandable that they would be angry
about a further lack of action after Lowrys
death.

been committed by the Arabs in this

district. (NZPA). It goes on to suggest that
people even thought of the massacre as a
good thing at the time, saying many
messages were received that this
disturbance would have a very good effect
on the natives.

Books, LLC states that the proximity of

[Surafend] coupled with a perceived
acceptance and dismissal [by the British
Army] of petty crime by the local Arabs
meant that thefts and
Map of the area in which the
even murders took place
regularly with little to
Anzac Soldiers Were. The
no redress from
location with the red cross is
Imperial forces.
Surafend, and its proximity
(Gullett) This suggests
to Richol Le Zion can be
again that there was at
observed.
least a perceived
dismissal by the British
Army towards the
crimes committed by the Arabs. It reinforces
the idea that the British Army has some
responsibility for the massacre.
A newspaper article reinforces the idea that
the Arabs deserved what they got; it states:
all troops round Surafend had been
suffering from the depredations of the Arabs
and could get no redress the murder of
this New Zealander was not the first that had

S o fi a B e r g : T h e S u r a f e n d A ff a i r | 5

The racial prejudice

demonstrated by this
article and other
publications around the
time of the incident
make it clear that the
media is not entirely
reliable as a source on
which to base the
legitimacy of a
justification of the
murder of innocent
people. Indeed, this has
been the case in many
instances throughout
history. When American
soldiers massacred
innocent people at My
Lai in Vietnam, the
media went so far as to
cover it up. Even with
the denial in the media,
the effects of the massacre were clearly
long-lasting and have stained the Anzac
reputation. Ultimately, there is no way to
justify such an incident.
Effects of the massacre

mmediate effects of the massacre are

clear: the people of the village were
affected by this incident, as an
estimated 30-40 men were killed. The
women and children were left without the
men of their village and the structures in
which they lived were burned down. The
relationship between the New Zealand
soldiers and their British superiors was also
affected by the incident. The already
existing rift between the groups expanded as
a result of the massacre. The Commander-

S o fi a B e r g : T h e S u r a f e n d A ff a i r | 6

In-Chief of the Anzac Mounted Rifles

division in Palestine, General Sir Edmund
Allenby, accused the soldiers of being
murderers and attempted to revoke the
medals and honors that the soldiers had
received. As a result of this massacre,
though none of the New Zealand soldiers
ended up being court-marshaled, there is
still a great sense of shame regarding the
incident.

he Surafend Affair, in the end,

was the tragic result of a great
deal of resentment and racial
prejudice brought upon by
laziness on the part of the British authorities
and triggered by the murder of a fellow
soldier. Although it was a heinous incident,
blame cannot be placed on any one group in
particular. Everyone involved could have
acted better; the authorities could have made
the wishes of the soldiers in their command
In an article published by the Sydney
a bigger priority, the soldiers could have
Morning Herald in 2009,
shown self-restraint, and the
Oliver Messenger, the
They Were good soldiers
Arabs could have refrained
son of an Anzac soldier,
but they didnt put up with
from thieving from the
was interviewed about
any shit.
soldiers. However, as this
the incident. In the
was not the case, perhaps
article, the longer lasting
the blame can be placed on
effects of the article are
human naturethe instinct
clear when Messenger
that prompts people to steal
states that [the soldiers]
and murder, and then to
decided to do something
react with revenge. Indeed, it is human
about it [the petty crime of the locals],
nature that prompts the desire to place blame
because no one else would they had to put
on individuals, or situations, or even the
up with it for too long. They were good
alignment of the stars. Perhaps the volatile
soldiers but they didnt put up with any
nature of the human psyche is, ultimately,
shit. It indicates the effect it had on those
the reason so many lives were lost.
who participated in the incident, but more so
the fact that the Anzac soldiers were good
men who were left with a stain on their
reputation that should have been prevented.

Books, LLC. New Zealand and World War I: Military History of New Zealand in World War I,
Surafend Affair, Australia and New Zealand Army Corps. 2008.

Elliott, Tim. Anzacs Atrocity Had to be Done. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2009.
Gullett, HS. The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914 to 1918, Vol. VII.
Australian War Memorial, 1943.
Kinloch, Terry. Surafend, the Massacre. Great War Forum, 2005.
McGibbon, Ian. The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Military History. Oxford
University, USA, 2007.
Moore, Briscoe A. The Mounted Riflemen In Sinai and Palestine. Naval and Military
Press, 2009.
NZPA. Killings in 1918 Alleged. New Zealand Herald, 1964