Bombing of the headquarters of הסוכנות היהודית HAʾSOḪNUT HAʾYEHUDIT in ירושלים YERUŜALAYIM.

The first imperial report described a vehicle bearing an American flag. The supplementary police account was more qualified: it identified consular registration plates and said the car was possibly flying the flag. Witnesses reportedly recognized the consulate's usual chauffeur, who was admitted through the gate. The account confirmed that a matching car was missing from the consulate.^{1 2}

The supplementary report says:

it has been difficult to obtain an authoritative version of what took place.³

It attributed the difficulty to denied access and inability to examine witnesses and the vehicle properly. That is the investigators' account of their limitations, not an independent finding about every disputed circumstance. The vehicle's provenance does not establish United States authorization or complicity.

דוד בן-גוריון DAVID BEN-GURION's same-day diary recorded nine dead and thirty injured. JTA's next-day headline reported ten dead and ninety wounded. The later official return gives thirteen and eighty-four injuries divided by severity. These are developing reports of one bombing; they must not be added together.^{4 5 6}

Among the dead was לייב יפה LEIB YAFFE, a leading figure in קרן היסוד KEREN HAʾYESOD. The attack struck the people financing and administering national life, not simply a military position. A reconciled thirteen-person roster remains necessary to connect every reported death to an individual record.⁷

The 14 March bulletin reported tightened treatment of consular vehicles and the burial of thirteen victims. A 16 March report described an arrest warrant for the chauffeur named Anton Dajoud, also rendered Daoud. These belong to the bombing's aftermath. A warrant establishes an accusation and judicial action, not a conviction.^{8 9}

The need to protect the compound ran alongside negotiations over a future government. Political authority was being built while the institutions carrying it were vulnerable to attack. The bombing demonstrates that vulnerability without proving every later allegation about the perpetrators' chain of command.

The initial report gives about 09:43 on 11 March; its supplement gives 09:46. Both place the event in daylight on ל׳ באדר א׳ ה׳תש״ח 30th 𝑜𝑓 Adar I, AM 5708, 30 Adar I. The supplement was sent on 13 March and circulated on 15 March, reporting the casualty position on 12 March. Burial and security reports appeared on 14 March; the warrant was reported on 16 March. None changes the bombing's date.^{10 11}

• Why does a consular vehicle not by itself establish government complicity?
• How should a later casualty return be reconciled with named memorial records?