Talk:Operation An-Far

Removed bits
I'm just putting this here until I can get this tangel sorted: == 'Ten Days' == + 'Ten days' is the name Benny Morris gives to military operations carried out by the Givati Brigade across southern-central Israel in July 1948. (Benny Morris, 'The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949.' ISBN 0 521 33028 9. (1987). pages 212,213.) Walid Khalidi names it Operation An-Far. ('All that remains', page 410.) Moshe Dayan and Shabtai Teveth refer to it as Operation "Death to the Invaders". (Shabtai Teveth, "Moshe Dayan - The soldier, the man, the legend". ISBN 0 704 31080 5. Page 187. Moshe Dayan, "Story of My Life". ISBN 0 688 03076 9. Page 115. 'I though[t] [the name] pompous, like the headline of an ideological tract.') Padres Hana (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And this Hatta   17 July 1948    Egyptian Army    Giv'ati    970 Jusayr   17 July 1948    n/a    Giv'ati    1,180

Karatiyya   17 July 1948    Egyptian Army inc. two tanks    Giv'ati 3rd Bttln,89th Armoured Bttln

Teveth, page 187. States that the 3rd Battalion supplied an infantry company and that the 89th's strength was 221 men. "Karatiya was taken easliy without a single casualty". 1,370 Zayta   17-18 July 1948    n/a    n/a    330

Padres Hana (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is 100% incorrect. The Ten Days is the period between the first and second truce, An-Far is the operation between July 8–11 and 12–15, and Death to the Invader is the operation on July 16–18. Three entirely different things. —Ynhockey (Talk) 03:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ynhockey is correct. "Ten Days" is the name later given to a period of fighting, not the name of the operation. Operation An-Far was launched on July 8 (Benny Morris, 1948, p. 276). Operation Mavet LaPolshim was launched on July 16 (Benny Morris, 1948, p. 277). The Ten dAy period also saw fighting on other fronts, which had nothing to do with Farouk.


 * Also, what is the point of the table of villages? there already exists an article (more than one actually) about villages depopulated in the war. How does this table help the reader understand the course of the operation? -- Nudve (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So was 'Operation death to the invaders' that Dayan/Teveth write about a completely different operation? 'Ten Days' is the name Morris uses in my edition to refer to all the operations carried out by Giv'ati in July - I haven't seen the later versions: In my edition there is no An-Far at all, it is only used by Khalidi. As to the names + populations of the villages I have yet to come across anywhere that connects each village to the brigade that captured it. Should I just move this stuff to the brigade histories? I am correct that Giv'ati was involved in all three attacks?Padres Hana (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And could we have a reference for the "Anti-Farouk"? I've not seen it before.Padres Hana (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is because the books you use are about the Palestinian exodus, not the war itself. I'm not sure how important it is to list the villages by the brigade that captured them, but I would say List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict is the place to start, and of course, since those villages have their own articles, these corresponding articles are the most suitable place. The operation article should also include this info, but in the prose rather than in a separate table. I think Givati was involved in all of them, as it operated mostly in the south, but I'm not 100% positive. I'll add the ref from Morris. -- Nudve (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concurr with Ynhockey and Nudve.
 * Padres Hana, when you write "'Ten Days' is the name Morris uses in my edition to refer to all the operations carried out by Giv'ati in July", I think you are wrong. Even in the Birth, Morris refers to the 'Ten days' as a period of time ! Not as the name of an operation. How could the Israelis have guessed the second truce would be inforced 10 days later... The 'Ten Days' is the name historians gave to this period after the war.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes looking at the reference again I find Morris doesn't actually call it Operation Ten Days. He uses the phrase During the "Ten Days" twice. Which suggests he means the period of time retrospectively. But he also has: The Brigade headquarters on 5 July discussed and outlined its plans for the "Ten Days" and on 7 July Avidan issued operational instructions to his battalions. Which would suggest there was an overarching plan, not just three random operations. Whether it had a name I can't tell, the "Ten Days" must be Morris' private code. Just a thought: Somewhere there is a lot of stuff about the July attack on the Old City failing because it was rushed due to the anticipated UN imposed truce. (Heard that before?) True the high command couldn't know the operation would last 10 days but perhaps when they went into it they knew that it would be short because of international intervention. Padres Hana (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Villages
(Details taken from 'All that remains'. * indicates also named in Morris) Padres Hana (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The order for 7 July the 1st Battalion.
Presently there is a sentence (unsourced) saying:

"On 7 July the 1st Battalion were given their orders: "to expel the refugees encamped in the area, in order to prevent enemy infiltration from the east to this important position.""

Is " 1st Battalion" here a mistake for "51st Battalion"?

..I assume this is from Morris (1987) ..or Ayalon (1963)? If so, read Tell es-Safi, note note 10. The older orders were "laundered" before they were published. Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not digging deeper into this specific instance, the battalion numbering in the IDF at the time was fairly simple—the number started with the brigade number (for example, Givati's number was 5), followed by the battalion number. Hence, 1st Battalion in Givati = 51st Battalion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you very much; that was educating! ;-). I think it is pretty clear then that the present version is the "laundered" (read: white-washed) one. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to be of help. However, on the contrary, I believe the article is far from being whitewashed, and is instead very pro-Palestinian and is entirely written from the Palestinian point of view. It is also a coatrack because the title is Operation An-Far, while the article discusses Palestinian villages and reads a lot like List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is about a military operation, so first and foremost, it should talk about military matters. I wish I had more time to work on it, as I already have the necessary sources. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I wasn´t clear. When I wrote "the present version" I was only referring to the *one* order/sentence; and that one order/sentence appear now in the article in what Morris called "laundered" version. (My name: white-washed). As to the article as a whole, I really do not want to express any opinion on it, as I simply have not read enough on this specific topic. And yeah, we all have too little time. Heck, I´m faced with articles like this ...I don´t know where to start......Deep sigh, Huldra (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Huldra - Good luck. My two cents : discuss with this gentleman before he goes on writing articles without giving sources. Everything can be theoretically deleted without warning.
 * @Ynhockey - I share your mind about the lack of information about the battles itself. It was a military operation.
 * But step by step... Ceedjee (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Control approaches in southern Judea"
I noticed that the above sentence was quoted, apparently from James Cameron, The Making of Israel. Is it a sentence originally said by Cameron? If so, then there is no reason to use direct speech. Otherwise, the ref should specify that it was cited in James Cameron, not said by him. Moreover, this objective makes no sense, so it should be clarified either way. —Ynhockey (Talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Population figures that have no relevance to this article.
So there is not even room for the sizes of the villages captured by the Giv'ati brigade in footnotes - very dissapointing.

8 July 1948: Iblis, Pop:540. Al-Masmiyya al-Saghira, Pop:530. Al-Tina, Pop:750. Bi'lin, Pop:190. + According to Israeli army reports the first phase of the operation, in which 16 villages were captured, resulted in "more than 20,000" people fleeing the area.." Morris, page 212 - citing: Major Avraham Eilon (ed), 'Hativat Givati Mul Hapolesh Hamitzri' (The Givati Brigade Opposite the Egyptian invader), (1963), pp. 226-228 and 254. - 9 July 1948: Al-Jaladiyya, Pop:360. Qastina, Pop:890. Tall al-Turmu, Pop:760. - 9-10 July 1948: Barqusya, Pop:330. Mughallis, Po.p:540. Tal al-Safi, Pop:1,290. Idnibba, Pop:490. Jilya, Pop:330. Qazaza, Pop:940. Sajad, Pop:370. Summil, Pop:950. Al-Masmiyya al-Kabira, Pop:2,520. Population figures taken from the 1945 village survey as quoted in "All that remains", ISBN 0 88728 224 5. It looks like Nakba-denial to me.Padres Hana (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You have not provided a single good reason for why village population is relevant to Operation An-Far. Are you saying that if, for example, Qastina's population was 1,250 instead of 890 it would have changed the background, prelude, operation or aftermath? Are there sources for such a claim? It seems like you're trying to include village populations and other 100% irrelevant statistics in every article that even briefly mentions these villages. There's already a place for that; in fact, SlimVirgin created a new one—Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War... or something like that. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a memorial. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the chart with the villages and their populations is useful and relevant to this article. I would like to reinclude it since the article seems to missing coverage of the villages affected and because its a quick and clear way to summarize this information for the reader. Any objections?  T i a m u t talk 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one: we already have so many articles that talk about these villages in-depth, that it is not necessary to say anything here other than the name of the village, and a wikilink. The readers can follow the links and see for themselves. However, the total depopulated population should definitely be mentioned in the framework of a larger aftermath section, and if there's a particular village that stands out as particularly populated, that could be mentioned too. One of the problems with listing the populations for each village (other than undue weight and WP:COATRACK), is that in real life, the importance of a place is not determined by its population, and even more so during a war. Therefore this would give the reader a false impression that the most populous village was the most important, and on down. Rather, we should mention if a particular village was strategically important (and in this operation, I believe some where), or if it had been prominent in some way before the war (wealth, social standing, religious reasons, etc.) —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your points; but just now I am working on Zayta, one of the villages depopulated in Operation An-Far...and, presently, it is not mentioned in the article *at all*. Which is clearly wrong, IMO. There must be a "middle-way", between giving loads of info on the village (which, I think we can all agree, should be in the village-article, and not here)..and not mentioning the villages *at all*.  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that villages shouldn't be mentioned, and have no objection to mentioning them all. This article is on my long-term plan for expansion, and when its size increases significantly, there will be enough room to add much more about villages in the framework of the information on the battles. In the meantime, please feel free to mention all the villages, preferably as prose (not a list). —Ynhockey (Talk) 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I´m still drowning in work on the -48-villages..and I still feel bad about not comming back to Operation Shoter (I haven´t forgotten it!)...I´ll see what I can do when the 48-villages are better covered... But generally: I am just in favour of anything that makes navigating easy, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Side note: Zayta was captured during Operation Death to the Invader, not An-Far. I have corrected this accordingly. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give a source for that; Khalidi writes that it was depopulated during Operation An Far, Morris gives 17-18 July..but Khalidi also cites "History of the War of Independence" which, according to Khalidi, states that occupation occurred around a week earlier (9-10 July). Huldra (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Operation An-Far ended on July 15, and Morris appears to be correct. Can you give the specific cite in Khalidi, so that I may check what the original source says? —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Khalidi, 1992, p 227 writes under the heading "Occupation and depopulation": Zaita was one of the villages captured during Operation An Far (see Bil'in, Gaza). Israeli Historian Benny Morris indicates that Zayta was occupied at the very end of this offensive, on 17-18 July 1948, but "History of the War of Independence"  states that occupation occurred around a week earlier, on  9-10 July.(reference Morris, 1987, xvii, 212-13, T:270-271) ...and according to Khalidi, 1992, p. xiii: "T" stands for: Israeli Ministry of Defence (1959), Tolot Milchmet ha-Qomemiyyut (The History of the War of Independence), Tel Aviv: Marakhot. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading "Birth..revisited" (2004) and 1948 (2008), both by Morris; it is clear that in the first he does not mention "Operation death to the Invaders" at all. In the 2004 -book it looks as if it all goes under the name of "operation An Far". Huldra (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the original source and indeed, the History of the War of Independence says that Zeita was captured in An-Far. There is another chapter about Death to the Invader, and the fact that Morris doesn't mention it is not an indication of anything (indeed, in the 2008 book, he doesn't mention most of the operations in the war, not sure about the 2004 book). Wallach's Carta's Atlas of Israel (1978) shows Zeita as being captured in Death to the Invader. The most authoritative source on this issue, IMO, is Avraham Ayalon's book Givati Against the Egyptian Invader, which is by far the most detailed about the southern front. It has both text (p. 322) and a map (p. 325) clearly showing that Zeita was captured on the night of July 16/17. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, I believe it would be appropriate to mention this discrepancy between sources in the article about Zeita. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ynhockey, for checking that: greatly appreciated. And I agree: the discrepancy should be reflected in the article. (on another note: It is becoming rather normal that Morris and Kahlidi disagree; what is amusing is that they disagree in a manner not expected...Morris stating that some Israeli settlement is on the land of a Palestinian village..and Khalidi disagreeing! see Daliyat al-Rawha' and Zayta, Hebron.

As for Zayta, Hebron, I would note ...that is the most specific.

Now, as for Ayalon; I thought he had largely been discredited? He was the guy who "laundered" the expulsion orders in Tell es-Safi:. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that some of the text in Ayalon's two books was changed in the editing process, or by Ayalon himself, in order to avoid saying undesirable things for the IDF. However, by the same standard, Morris has been "largely discredited", by accurate analysis of Ephraim Karsh where Morris distorts or fabricates quotes, and Pappe has been completely discredited by several historians. We don't avoid using sources because another historian criticized them, or even analyzed their flaws; by and large, almost 100% of the military history written about the Givati Brigade is sourced to Ayalon. Morris uses him as a source in all of his books, up to the last one on 1948. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)