ملف ٧٠٥/١٩١٦ الجزء ٢ "انتفاضة عربية: التقارير العربية؛ تقارير السير م. سايكس" [و‎‎٤‎٠] (٤٥٠/٧٧)

independent Arabs under the sceptre of His Majesty the lord and king of the Arabs.
He then proclaimed him King of all Arabs, according to the book of God and the law of
the prophet.
APPENDIX (B).
The Press.
Egyptian Opinion on the Rebellion in Hejaz according to German authorities.
The “ Egyptian Gazette ” published, on the 5th October, a further article by Sajid
Keshid Bida, the editor of the anti-Turkish Cairo periodical “ El Manar.” After violent
attacks on the \oung Fork party, who in atheistic blindness had allied themselves to
the enemies of Islam, the German oppressors of the Mohammedans in East Africa, the
author returns once again to the rebellion of the Sherif of Mecca.
i,: The Sherif, by his rebellion against the present Government in Turkey, has
rendered a great service to Islam. Foreseeing the threatening destruction of the
Turkish empire, he guaranteed the safety of the Hejaz by freeing her from Turkish
rule, thus perhaps laying the foundations of an Arab Mohammedan power. Unity
and friendship had never before flourished as they do now among the Arab leaders.
The old quarrel still persists between Idrisi and the Imam Yahja, but perhaps the
Grand Sherif would be able to reconcile them, so that the whole Arabian peninsula
could be ruled on a basis of decentralisation.”
Beshid is obliged to admit, much against his will, that the Greater Arabia idea
and the Sherif’s methods had not found much favour in Egypt. He continues—
“ Egyptian Mohammedans do not appear to sympathise with this movement,
in spite of the fact that it is likely to lead to the establishment of an Arab-Islamitic
power absolutely independent of foreign influences. Many doubt the possibility of
this dream being fulfilled, although they unanimously support the Sherif’s action,
in so far as it is directed towards the protection of the holy places against Unionist
destruction. The Sherif’s step should therefore be regarded at any rate as
harmless, and at the best it may lead to the general benefit of Islam or at least of
Hejaz. Every Mohammedan who knows the shameful deeds of the Unionists
is their bitter enemy. If Egyptians would only believe the reports published in
the £ Mokattam ’ and £ Ahram ’ on the atrocities of Jemal Pasha in Syria, the
accuracy of which reports has been corroborated by Turkish prisoners and others,
they would turn against the chief promoter of these crimes in the most violent and
decided manner. However, the day is not far distant on which they will see the
truth.”
Beshid Bida’s anger against the Unionists is not hard to understand for anyone
wdio knows his past. He was banished from Turkey in Abdul Hamid’s reign, and
returned to Syria after the rebellion ; there, under the protection of the independent
Government, whose policy he thought he had directed towards the Western Powers, he
hoped to continue undisturbed the Arab nationalist propaganda which he had already
carried on in Egypt. The Young ’Turks, however, saw through him at once. He failed
as candidate for the Young Turk parliament, and yet only a few month’s later turned
up in Cairo disappointed and more anti-Turkish than ever. From that time onwards he
made no secret of his true character of an agitator for the autonomy of Syria under
English supremacy. Later he extended his aims, preaching the pan-Arabian union
under the protection of Anglo-Egypt. Before and shortly after the outbreak of the war
he travelled for the English to India and the occupied portion of Mesopotamia. He is
little liked in Egypt as being a Syrian and a friend of the English.
[Extract from “ Korrespondenz-Blatt,” No. 4.]
Young Turk v. Arab.
Cairo, November 10.
I am able to send you another document which the Grand Sherif has allowed to be
published now that the right time has come. It constitutes yet another proof—if such
be needed at this late hour—of the treacherous policy of the “Young Turks” in
[898—21] D