Talk:Kiryat Gat

---

Kiryat or Qiryat?

The current title is Qiryat Gat. I've only seen Kiryat used (in my very limited experience), and the unofficial city website is kiryat-gat.co.il. Page move? Fireplace 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters really, what disturbs me was the bias placed in the article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Chillin1248 (talk • contribs)

PalestineRemembered says - I've added various material on the history of the town. Since the events described are still within living memory, and potentially very significant to the operation of the chip plant, it seems to me they belong in the main body of the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:81.106.188.136 (talk • contribs)

- This So called "history material" is nothing but shameless lies in a palestinian attempt to rewrite Israel's history to their benefit. Wikipedia should not allow lies and political propoganda to be included in it's articles. Also, this has nothing to do with the chip plant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Kedorlaomer (talk • contribs)

- I agree with the above wholeheartedly. This is an encyclopedia, not a vain attempt to rewrite the past to the gain of some and the loss of others. ~~Mcdonal6~~

ARe these your crimes, or crimes of your heroes that you're trying to deny? Or are you in denial as what David Irving is in prison for?

Clearing of Qiryat Gat is also supported by the words of the Quakers and of Sharrett, Israeli Foreign Minister

Sharrett to IDF CGS Dori in "most uncharacteristic language".

"The IDF's actions" threw into question "our sincerity as a party to an international agreement .... One may assume that Egypt in this matter will display special sensitivity as her forces saw themselves as responsible for the fate of these civilian inhabitants. There are also grounds to fear that any attack by us on the people of these two villages may be reflected in the attitude of the Cairo Government towards the Jews of Egypt".

Quakers Ray Hartsough and Delbert Replogle described the shooting (300 rounds of a machine-gun within a hundred yards of where we were sleeping) and treating the beatings. "Jane Smith (one of the Quaker party) has bandaged six men. The worst case was a man with two bloody eyes, a torn ear, and a face pounded until it was blue".

Benny Morris "Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" p523

To remove the sources to such well known material is tantamount to vandalism. PalestineRemembered 06:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Faluja

what is al-faluja things? is it a poorly-written fact or just nonsense? Nielswik_(talk) 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This was not an NPOV edit

The well sourced material that used to be in on this page has been replaced by a statement that avoids the known facts of the case, and seeks to blame the victims. ie people who suffered terribly at the hands of the immigrants 50 years ago, and continue to suffer dreadfully now.

The facts are:

1) Al-Falujah (and it's neighbour Iraq al Manshiya) were specifically covered and protected by the agreement that Israel signed with Egypt in Feb 1949.

2) Al-Falujah was ethnically cleansed in a brutal fashion by the IDF (very shortly after the above agreement) and UN observers reported this to Ralph Bunch who reported it to the UN. The Quakers in the town reported it in detail and Moshe Sharret, the Foreign Minister of Israel, protested that Israel should abide by the International Agreements it had made.

3) None of this was an accident - in fact, a top Israeli historian says that the orders for this ethnic cleansing probabably came from David Ben-Gurion.

4) The bulldozers were sent in some 5 days later to destroy the villages, and we know that Yigal "Sasha" Allon ordered it.

5) There is no debate worth speaking of about what happened to these poor people.

And it gets worse - since completely unsourced allegations of "aggression" are aimed at the people who were beaten out of their homes. I cannot believe that such a shocking allegation belongs in an encyclopedia. We'd not do it to the innocent victims at Lidice - so why are atrocities visited on Palestinians being denied here? PalestineRemembered 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support PalestineRemembered on this one. The last line of the article summary "...it is quite likely that many Arab residents were pressured to leave by Israeli forces, the unfortunate side-effect of years of Arab aggression." is an editorial judgement call that is entirely unsupported by any documented instances and actually seems to apologize for the events depicted in the referenced content that is being supressed. I notice the term "Al-Faluja" redirects to this article. While I understand that edit wars undoubtedly will erupt no matter what course is chosen, as a way of mitigating the current conflict I suggest the creation of a separate article on Al-Faluja that would allow that subject matter to be developed according to the usual WP quality and collaboration standards. I hope this course of action will not be viewed as more controversial than the current one. Best regards and wishes to all,--Amerique 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand and appreciate your offer of a compromise, it seems to me a serious dis-service to the encyclopedia to hive-off and conceal the horrific, recent (and still unsettled) history of this town. I challenge you to provide any similar example anywhere in the world where well known events of this nature are simply glossed over and buried in anodyne looking links. PalestineRemembered 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what you are talking about is what is happening currently within this article. It seems to me that the creation of a separate article on Al-Faluja would allow subject matter pertaining to that site to be adequately addressed, with similar attempts at suppresion more easily defended against. Neither this article nor the proposed one are likely to be particularly prominent on WP, but both articles can link to each other and other WP portals, projects or whatever. Best,--Amerique 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct - what is currently happening is that the horrific, recent history of this town is being glossed over and buried in anodyne looking links. Show me where else in the encyclopedia this is being done and you might win me round. In most places (I'm thinking particularily of Lidice, but I'm sure I could do the same with entries for eg native Americans) atrocities of this kind dominate the entry. It would seem natural for the same thing to happen with Qiryat Gat. Well, unless Wikipedia is paid for or otherwise subject to people who profited from this well-attested atrocity, of course. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We need some reliable sources in this article so that the claims made here can be verified; www.palestineremembered.com doesn't count as that, it's a personal website run by an anonymous individual. Please find proper sourcing for the strong claims being made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you could check the content of the 2 references. It shows pages 243 and 244 of Benny Morris's "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949", (Cambridge University Press, 1989). - Szvest 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Hi PalestineRemembered, since you have the Israeli FM and IDF archive documents (Sharett to Dori, 6 Mar. 1949, Israel State Archives FM 2425\7 and Allon to OC General Staff Division, 5 Mar. 1949, IDFA 1046\70\\434. ) in your possession, perhaps you could scan and upload them to wikipedia, so we can link to the actual text. Thanks. Isarig 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All this information is referenced to those archives, where it has been examined by a famous Israeli historian, to whom I have credited the exact book and page. This is to policy and the way that all historical matter appears in this encyclopaedia, if you wish to change policy, then I suggest you start a discussion about it at the relevant page. Not here.

But thankyou for demonstrating so graphically how necessary it is to have this information here - clearly, some people find it surprising and doubt it's provenance. That's why I expanded the article in the first place, doubt was expressed that Morris could really be so sure about what he claimed. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I safely assume you have not looked at the originals, then, and are in fact referencing Morris's book? If so, may I remind you that you were just in front of ArbComm for doing this - falsely citing a source you have not actually read, instead of the actual place you saw the source cited. And you are doing this here after an edit war in which you claimed that there is more than just Morris as a source for this, and then added these two, apparently in an attempt to create an impression that there is more than just Morris's say-so. This looks very bad - I hope you have some explanation. Isarig 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight in the "History" section

Does anybody else think that the "History" section gives way way way undue weight to an ugly episode that happened almost 60 years ago immediately after a war? Certainly there must be other things that happened in the entire history of Kiryat Gat than just this tragic and unexcusable incedent. I propose this section be severely trimmed and more things that happened before and after 1949 be included in this history. --GHcool 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking pretty much the same thing following today's additions to that section. Isarig 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know much about local histories of Israeli cities. I could help with the trimming of the section, but I don't have the resources to help with adding history prior and after 1949. --GHcool 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The events took place in 1948-9, the city was founded in 1954. A short description of the history would be sufficient. The history of the region may deserve its own article (regardless of my thoughts concerning the reliability of the single source), and content may be moved to Al-Faluga Enclave, an article that should describe the fights between IDF and Egyptian forces, the armistice agreement, and later events. Derwig 06:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this article might be mistaken for a POV-fork, by which an article is split so that the two halves can give totally different impressions. In large articles on large subjects this is sometimes difficult to avoid. For small articles about small towns where the world-famous incidents are almost the only things documented, it is totally unnecessary and would be quite improper.

I'm not even sure we can go back to the stable version of the article with few details and few references, since editors arrived who apparently doubted that this history was genuine, mistaking it for maverick work by a single historian. Good articles are about (amongst other things) leaving the reader in no doubt that the story is genuine. PalestineRemembered 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems an odd objection to say that post-WWII history is no longer needed in articles. Have a look at Lidice or any other small town where there were atrocities documented from 60 years ago. Those things are described in detail, to the exclusion of almost anything else, and won't be forgotten for 100s of years. At Kiryat Gat there are issues of international relations left unfinished, so the details are particularily interesting and important.

Furthermore, what happened at Kiryat Gat was either repeated or threatened or talked about across 100s of other villages. The atrocities here went on under the noses of the most highly credible international observers and were documented - but nobody thinks they were somehow unique or even out of the ordinary.

Lastly, have a look at what triggered this extra work - weasel words were inserted to try and make it seem that Morris was not a good source and more references were needed. It would be perverse indeed if, having improved the article and firmed up the references, others were to come along and claim the information wasn't needed and didn't belong. I only put it there because it *was* needed! PalestineRemembered 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue would be that these things didn't happen in Kiryat Gat, which had yet to be founded, but rather in Falujah and Iraq al-Manshiya. The best solution would be to create an entry at al-Faluja to deal with the history of that town and/or to create an entry documenting the entirety of the goings-on in the Faluja pocket. Tewfik^Talk 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered's comparison of Lidice is a clever one only because the Lidice article should really be renamed as Lidice massacre. PalestineRemembered is using this error in the naming of the Lidice article to commit another error in the content of the Kiryat Gat article, except I feel that PalestineRemembered is going to have a more difficult time convincing people that he is right because al-Falujah was the name of the city where the attrocities took place, not Kiryat Gat (on the other hand, Lidice is still Lidice today). I agree with Tewfik's notion of creating a new article (perhaps called 1949 al-Falujah attrocities) and put the bulk of the history there (although there should be perhaps a couple of sentences about it in the Kiryat Gat article too). --GHcool 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

These events happened 7 yesrs before Kiryat Gat was founded and not exactly on the spot where the city is located. They just don't belong here. Beit Or 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The town of Oświęcim was renamed, but please don't try to dispute or conceal what happened there, you'll upset me. I don't think you'd be much appreciated by any of your fellow editors either, they're a bit funny about denial. PalestineRemembered 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Split

I recommend splitting the page in order to a) avoid the issue of giving too much weight to events prior to the subject/article creation, b) proper article on pre-48 entity. I think Ashdod is also another candidate, but let's see how this goes. --Shuki 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you examined Article size, a guideline which suggests article splitting be considered first as an article grows above about 32K? This article was 6.5K in it's stable form, ballooning to 10K only when some editors doubted whether there was real proof of the claims. PalestineRemembered 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about length. The split is warranted because the extensive al-Faluja stuff is not about Kiryat Gat, but about a place that no longer exists. It should be in its own article. nadav (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with nadav1 on this one, it's a new place and the old one simply doesn't exist anymore. same as you don't expect us to go over the articles of saudi arabia and start giving them inside articles about jewish villages of old days. Jaakobou 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've carried out the split. It's just a text dump though, so the page needs heavy editing to make it read like an article. nadav (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-Faluja connection

Does anyone have a better source for the claim that present-day Kiryat Gat is built upon the ruins of al-Faluja? The book sources I own are mostly general histories of the Middle East and so they don't don't deal with local issues such as the independence and establishment of Kiryat Gat. A quick check at my local library yields similarly unsatisfying results and I can't find anything from a reliable website on the Internet. I don't want to just give up and delete the hisorical references to al-Faluja because I fear that the claim might have merit to it. --GHcool 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See War and Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy, by David Tal (388). --G-Dett 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the book is not in the Los Angeles Public Library catalogue, so I can't easily find and read it myself, but it does look very credible. Instead of palestineremembered.com, would you mind citing Tal as the source and provide a necessary quotation from his book? Thanks. --GHcool 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link at google books. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not bad, but there must be something better. The way its worded with the parenthesis makes it look a little suspicious; its as if Kiryat Gat and Faluja were two different names meaning the same place at the same time, which simply isn't true. Also, because Tal writes "Faluja" (as opposed to "al-Faluja"), one gets the feeling that he is referring to the "Faluja pocket," which seems to be a larger area containing present-day Kiryat Gat and other surrounding places. It looks to me like "Faluja" is used as short-hand for the entire "Faluja pocket" in the same way that many people use the term "Gaza" to refer to the entire Gaza Strip. Without a doubt, present-day Kiryat Gat is located in the larger area that was once called the "Faluja pocket," but can somebody find a reliable source that states unequivically that it was built upon the ruins of the town of al-Faluja? --GHcool 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider a reliable website on this. The connection is also made on the Palestine Remembered website,which notes that Kiryat Gat was established on the land of Faluja and 'Iraq al-Manshiyya. The Israeli site Nakba Online has a detailed spreadsheet (in Hebrew), which states that part of Kiryat Gat, and the settlements of Nir Hen and Noga, were established on the land of Faluja. RolandR 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A neutral historical work would probably be better than self-published advocacy groups, especially given tat the only passage with some level of detail talks about how only in its modern expansion did Kiryat Gat begin to cover al Faluja land. Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is correct. Palestineremembered.com is not even close to being a reliable source, and even if it were, the way it is written on the website does not solidify the claim. Unless a reliable historical source can be found that solidifies this claim, I will add a verifiability tag to the claim. --GHcool 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered also quotes from the reputable Palestinian scholar Professor Walid Khalidi's major book All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948: "The Israeli town of Qiryat Gat (128113) was established in 1954 on the lands of ’Iraq Al-Manshiyya between that village and Al-Faluja; it has now spread onto the lands of Al-Faluja as well. Shahar (123114), Noga (121114), and Nir Chen (123113) were established in 1955 on village lands; and Nehora (121114) was founded in 1956, also on village lands." I don't have the book to check the accuracy of this quote, but I will try to locate it. Khalidi should certainly be accepted as a reliable source. RolandR 09:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not from Palestine Remembered, but Jerusalem I Love You. The point remains valid, however: if this is an accurate quote (and I am checking this), then we can accept the statement as having a reliable source. RolandR 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about Khalidi being a reliable source. Once the source is cited correctly, the next question is: Why are we including a reference to an abandoned city that is near Kiryat Gat? Certainly Kiryat Gat is notable enough without reference to an even less notable town that once stood nearby? For good reason, the Tulsa, Oklahoma article references the old Native American town it is built directly on top of, but I am sure a town to the west of Tulsa that was founded several years after the railroads brought white settlers to the area would not have mentioned the Native American tragedy.

Note: The Native Americans of Tulsa have a better case against their settlers than the Arabs of al-Faluja have against their's. --GHcool 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiryat Gat is built on land that was guaranteed to the occupants of Faluja, both in a bi-lateral agreement with another sovereign state and in letters lodged with the UN. Those people and their descendants have rights that would be enforceable if we were talking about a normal state. (The Tulsa Indians may have such rights too, but not by International Law).

Actually, there's lots of balance that could be introduced into the story, because some portion/all of the government of Israel was strongly in favour of sticking by the agreement. I'm not sure how to word it, otherwise I'd put it in myself. I can promise you I'd not obstruct any editor who set about putting it in just as you'd not obstruct me for putting in an opposing point of view. PalestineRemembered 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true or not, I still think that it deserves a brief mention in the KG article and a full explanation in the Faluja article. --Shuki 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue from 2007 has been reopened. I placed tags on it for many of the same reasons I placed tags on it in 2007. Unless someone could find a better source than Jerusaleiloveyou.net, I will remove the claim within a few days. --GHcool (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The former location of Iraq al'Manshiya is within the built-up area of Kiryat Gat, east of the railway line and to the south of the road to Beit Guvrin. The initial buildings of Kiryat Gat were on the other side of the railway line, where the main residential area is now. Al Faluja was about 3km to the WNW but now Kiryat Gat has spread almost that far (al Faluya was just on the other side of highway 40). Both locations are relevant to the history of Kiryat Gat. Jerusaleiloveyou.net just quoted Khalidi, so we don't need it. Khalidi is reliable for pre-1948 land ownership since he bases it on the British cadastral maps. I could consult them if necessary, but I don't think it is needed for the vague statement now in the article. As for the Faluja Pocket story, I removed the SFC article about the Intel plant, but it could go back if it is supported by one or more other sources that support there being an active controversy. Zero^talk 08:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The above quote from Roland ("The Israeli town of Qiryat Gat (128113) was established in 1954 on the lands of ’Iraq Al-Manshiyya between that village and Al-Faluja; it has now spread onto the lands of Al-Faluja as well. Shahar (123114), Noga (121114), and Nir Chen (123113) were established in 1955 on village lands; and Nehora (121114) was founded in 1956, also on village lands.") is accurate, it is from Khalidi, 1992, p. 97, under the Faluja-heading. Huldra (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is acceptable as it is currently. Thanks for your help Zero. --GHcool (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

'abandonned'

Notwithstanding what happened in every pre-48 village, there is no contradiction, misleading use of English to say that they were abandonned. It also does not imply that the residents voluntarily abandonned their homes either, but merely that the village was devoid of life. Ex: an abandonned car at the side of the road; maybe the driver stopped and left, or maybe the police arrested the driver and left the car as is. --Shuki 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned suggests "discarded, unwanted". One alternative is "became refugees", but that's not really adequate either. We really need something like "driven out". And if the commies had done it, we'd almost certainly say "beaten from their homes" or "ethnically cleansed". The last would probably be discouraged under WP:WTA, but we shouldn't mislead people into thinking it was not the case. PalestineRemembered 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's find a source that says that KG is built upon the ruins of al-Faluja first. --GHcool 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to one issue at a time - if the commies had beaten people from their homes, we'd make sure it was made very clear in the article, and ruthlessly expung weasel words pretending it didn't happen. PalestineRemembered 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia Talk: pages as a soapbox for far-fetched pejorative hypothetical analogies. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what PalestineRemembered is saying that we should demand verifiability with respect to claims of atrocities committed by "commies," but claims of atrocities committed by Israelis do not deserve the same attention to detail. This is, of course, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and scholarly practice in general, and so the suggestion will be ignored by the Wikipedia community. --GHcool 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm naturally grateful for this far-sighted view of the problem. But in this case, we know for certain that the villagers suffered atrocities at the hands of the immigrants. We have only OR that the villagers attacked a convoy - which in any case, is fundamentally unlikely, both from the fact that it was a market town well used to people with goods needing protection, and from the casualty list. We know that the convoy had no business there attempting to force a passage, Faluja was to be part of a neighbouring state. It is highly unlikely that the convoy carried food (despite the OR assertion we've seen made).

Please cease this OR and disinformation. Faljua was not part of a neighboring state- it was part of the British Mandate of Palestine, months before partition. We have a reputable source describing a battle between the villagers and a supply convoy passing through the town - and the article describes this accurately. Your speculations about what is "fundamentally unlikely" have no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We then have good evidence that the immigrants set about making life impossible for the townsfolk by blowing up their municipial buildings (a tactic used in preparation for ethnic cleansing in Bosnia).

Under these circumstances, any OR additions we make would lean in the direction of calling the "convoy incident" a massacre of the villagers, followed by a further attack, part of a wider plan to seize as big an Israel as they could manage. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Like PalestineRemembered, I too am sickened about what occured in al-Faluja and insist it be documented properly. Unlike PalestineRemembered, I demand a clear reason to include the al-Faluja tragedies in the Kiryat Gat article. --GHcool 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

al-Falaju already has an article and it should be developed as much as possible. If the residents of Kiryat Gat 1955 had nothing to do with al-Faluja, then all continuing talk on the KG page is irrelevant. --Shuki 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

הרצחת וגם ירשת ? RolandR 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a constructive contribution you wish to make to our encyclopedia here, or are you content to just personally attack editors? Isarig 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. I'm deleting the references to al-Faluja in the Kiryat Gat article since there has been no reliable sources to verify that Kiryat Gat has anything to do with the al-Faluja tragedies. I repeat my invitation to anyone who can find a reliable source that outlines the connection to add the statements back in and back it up with proper citations. --GHcool 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Geography lessons

I found an article in Hebrew from the paper Yedioth Ahronoth entitled "In the Footsteps of the Fighters of the Faluja Pocket" (from the "Excursions in Israel" series) that goes into intricate detail about the location of Faluja. The article is written for Israelis who want to tour the places of the battles, and somewhat romanticizes the events. Here's a translation of the relevant passages:

“ It was a balance of terror whose focus was a single route: the way from Gaza to Jerusalem. Today, it is Road 35 from Ashkelon to Kiryat Gat, filled with speed traps and pestering police cars, but back then - the artery of life of the Negev. An old Roman road, along which the British paved a narrow and winding asphalt road shaded by lines of Eucalyptus trees. Two crossroads controlled the southward traffic, and thus naturally became the centers of the fighting: the western junction and the eastern junction...

The eastern junction is the Plugot Junction [the intersection of Rd. 35 and 40], whose name then was Faluja, an innocuous looking place today, surrounded by woods of Eucalyptus, that is known for an annoying traffic light that interrupts the flow of traffic to Beersheba. Back then, the junction was located a bit westward, in the center of a large village, Faluja, which was a commercial center for the whole region. Adjacent to it was built a gigantic British military base and at its heart an air field. Not far, at the foot of Tel Erani, lies the neighboring village of Iraq al-Manshiyya, which together with Faluja were the gates to the Negev. Not for no reason did the the Egyptian 9th Brigade establish its command center in a two-story house in the heart of Faluja. cquote

”

The Plugot Junction is currently located at coordinates 31°37′33″N 34°35′23″E. Since Faluja was a bit west of there, in what's now the woods of Eucalyptus, it must be somewhere around 31°37′29″N 34°44′53″E (about half a mile west). Meanwhile, modern Kiryat Gat still lies on the other side of Route 40, but construction is indeed getting pretty close: about 0.5 miles southeast of what looks to be former Faluja. (By the way, a Google Earth user pins Faluja at 31°37′28″N 34°44′38″E, or 0.7 miles away from current construction). In any case, I think we should indeed include a brief mention in this article of the Faluja pocket, Operation Yoav, and Faluja. It's a notable event in Israel's history. nadav (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article on Israeli geography to be sure, but I fail to see how events that took place 0.7 miles away and 59 years ago belong in the article. The history of Kiryat Gat belongs in the Kiryat Gat article. If you want to add this information, feel free to create a new article called the 0.7 mile radius around Kiryat Gat, or, better yet, put it in the al-Faluja article. --GHcool 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. According to the Yedioth article, the Faluja pocket is very tiny (from the Givati Junction in the west, where the military history museum of the Givati Brigade currently is, to the hills just east of Kiryat Gat). A major battle of Operation Yoav basically occurred just across the road from it, and Iraq al Manshiya apparently stood in or adjacent to Kiryat Gat on the other side of the city. Kiryat Gat is the only city in the Faluja pocket. It makes sense to put one or two lines saying that a major offensive of the 48 war took place in that immediate area. I would want to know if I lived next to an important battlefield.

Furthermore, both Hebrew wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Hebraica mention Faluja and Iraq al-Manshiyya. The fourth sentence of Hebraica's article (in vol. 30) is "Kiryat Gat was established in 1955, between the ruins of the Arab villages of Iraq al-Manshiyya and Faluja, which were abandoned and and destroyed in the War of Independence (see 'Israel', 588-9)" I don't see why you have taken a hard line against putting one or two sentences with links to Faluja or Operation Yoav. nadav (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One or two sentences is acceptable. One or two paragraphs is unacceptable. --GHcool 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll request unprotection then. nadav (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I opposed your unprotection request because PalestineRemembered recently tried to pick a fight with me here, which leads me to believe that protection of this page is still, unfortunately, necessary. --GHcool 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Compare with Gaza

Over at Gaza, an expelled population gets considerable coverage, with details of what happened to it - see Jewish communities in Gaza. So why are the Palestinians barely mentioned in this article? Their expulsion is within living memory, is known to have been carried out with maximum prejudice and is recorded in some detail. Furthermore, it's historically important, being the best recorded example we have of the Nakba, some 200 times bigger. And these villagers were guaranteed their safety by Israel in an agreement with Egypt, recorded by the UN. Currently, this article looks as if a significant historical incident has simply been white-washed. PR^talk 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Kiryat Gat was not established until after 1955. This was 7 years after the 1948 Palestinian exodus (or, as PalestineRemembered refers to it, "the Nakba"). The events that took place in this area during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus and its aftermath are all in the Al-Faluja article where they belong. --GHcool 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if the enthusiasts for Lebensraum had rebuilt on and changed the name of Lidice we'd not document what happpened to the original inhabitants? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to understand Wikipedia policy on documenting historical incidents. PR^talk 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is not a fair one because Kiryat Gat was not "rebuilt on" al-Faluja, but rather built nearby al-Faluja, within the "Faluja pocket." --GHcool 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Click on this - which is the result I got for Lidice. Those look exactly like ruins to me, and they're certainly not covered by the the modern buildings, which are some distance away. In Kiryat Gat's case, the satellite picture shows the modern town directly abutting ruins of al-Falujah, as if other foundations are under new buildings. They're the same town and should be treated as such. PR^talk 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PR, thanks for the interesting picture. It really looks like the new village was built adjacent to the ruins. Can anyone confirm if the original Kiryat Gat was built adjacent to the ruins (like 50 metres) or at what distance? 'Nearby' would otherwise mean a few kilometres. --Shuki 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that mound supposed to be the ruins of al-Faluja? It looks like just a mound with some kind of structures on it. Claiming that it represents the ruins of a pre-1948 Arab village is kind of a stretch based on that image. Its not that I don't believe you, PalestineRemembered, its just that the picture doesn't prove your point. Even if whatever is on that mound really are the ruins of al-Faluja, isn't it equally likely that "the rest of" al-Faluja was on the east side of that little mound and Kiryat Gat was built on the west side? If you're going to prove that Kiryat Gat was built on top of Al-Faluja, you're going to have to do better than that. --GHcool 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I thought the sat pic was of Lidice. The picture is instead somewhere closer to Beit Shemesh, a place not near Kiryat Gat at all. PR, could you please clarify the discrepancy. --Shuki 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Ninet Tayeb still a resident of Qiryat Gat?

You can't tie a person to a city because he or she once lived there. As far as I know, she's no longer a resident of this town and therefore should not be included. Northern (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The notable residents' section is also for past residents (included deceased). Check out other pages.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

References

This reference was removed due to the URL appearing unacceptable: <ref name="All that Remains">{{cite web|url=http://www.jerusalemiloveyou.net/spip.php?article51|title=Alfalouja text of "All that Remains" (November 1992)|author-link=Walid Khalidi|publisher=Institute for Palestine Studies.|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070615201030/http://www.jerusalemiloveyou.net/spip.php?article51|archive-date={{date|2007-06-15}}|date=2002-11-19}}

While the domain has since been taken over by a Japanese website, the archived page is still available at [1]. Apparently the same reference is still being used for the same fact(s), it just doesn't have the actual text about the particular village. Described on Amazon as an "authoritative reference work". This comment is so that if someone wants to know what the book says without actually buying it, they can. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

They should buy the book if they want to know what the book says. They shouldn't rely on unacceptable sources. --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you feel it's unacceptable? 50.135.249.113 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

jerusalemiloveyou.net is not the type of source we regard as reliable on their own say-so. On the other hand, provided that an editor has checked that the text matches the real source (the book of Khalidi, which is not on-line), it is not necessarily wrong to link to jerusalemiloveyou.net at the same time. See WP:Convenience link for an essay about this type of thing; but not everyone agrees. Zero^talk 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this judgement based purely on the URL, or domain name? If it's based on the fact that the editors of the site were likely not being paid for their work, and would not have a financial penalty for making mistakes, Wikipedia has no policy that states that unpaid work is unreliable. 2601:8:9780:1EE:9DCF:D73F:4122:2B53 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

jerusalemiloveyou.net does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. --GHcool (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How did you make this determination? 2601:8:9780:1EE:4058:55D0:A1B1:D756 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The link was dead, last time I checked. I have the Khalidi-book, and I can always check any page you like. Huldra (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted the link to archive.org's copy: [2] While I think it's interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about various subjects (such as a more precise description of the circumstances of the Egyptian unit's departure than Wikipedia provided; I corrected an article based on this information), it doesn't appear to be used for anything contentious, so whether or not a citation is included doesn't seem that important (as long as wherever it's used really isn't contentious and won't get removed due to editors with an unreasonable idea of "contentious"). 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see it now, and I have checked with my Khalidi-copy. It seems to me to be a 100% faithful copy. (Not a photo-copy, though; there are fewer words pr line than in my original. However, my copy is a hard-back one, I know there are also soft-bound ones from 2006; perhaps those are different.) I think we can provide a link pr WP:Convenience link, cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you do so, I think the Al-Falujah article has a dead link to the non-archived page, not sure if it's used elsewhere or if there are automated tools to update links like that. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiryat Gat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140803052642/http://www.qiryat-gat.muni.il/StaticPage.aspx?Page=99 to http://www.qiryat-gat.muni.il/StaticPage.aspx?Page=99

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Zochrot

I added the following information about the history of this place from an Israeli source called Zochrot, which has pre-1948 information about many geographic areas of Israel/Palestine. My contribution was removed because allegedly Zochrot is unreliable. No explanation or evidence was provided for this allegation. If there is a source that contradicts what I added, let's see it. Zochrot seems to be a RS. Here is what I added:

Perched on hilly terrain, the village of al-Faluja bordered Wadi al-Faluja to the east, north and west. Village lore has it that the site had been named Zurayq (Turmus, Lupine) al- Khandak but later renamed in commemoration of Shahab al-Din al-Faluji a Sufi master who moved from Iraq to the area in the fourteenth century and was buried there. Zochrot project, "al-Faluja"

On 14 March 1948, Haganah forces attacked the village and a Haganah demolition crew arrived that day and blew up 10 buildings, including the village post office and the city hall building. Under terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Egyptian forces led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who years later would become president of Egypt, withdrew from the area, known as the "Falluja pocket." By 21 April 1949, Israel launched a successful campaign of intimidation to pressure local residents to flee with tactics that included beatings, looting, attempted rapes and a "whisper propaganda campaign" targeting the villagers. Zochrot project, "al-Faluja" NYCJosh (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. I had never heard of Zochrot. After doing a little research, I realize that my removal was hasty. I'll restore it. My apologies. --GHcool (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, I appreciate a WP editor who is willing to admit error.NYCJosh (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

GHcool--The Zochrot source I added states explicitly that part of Kiryat Gan is located on what was al-Faluja. (Since Kiryat Gat is much bigger than al-Faluja was, the entirety of Kiryat Gat cannot be located on it.) NYCJosh (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Zochrot source is incorrect in this regard. They probably are conflating the "Faluja pocket" with al-Faluja. I know this is confusing, but it has been hashed out above in this talk page in 2007 and 2015. --GHcool (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The History section of the article states: By 1992, Kiryat Gat had grown and spread also on to the land formerly belonged to the village of Al-Faluja. P 97 of Khalidi is cited for this. Are you saying Khalidi doesn't say this or that Khalidi is incorrect?NYCJosh (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil response with more detail. It's a little confusing. If you do a control-F on this page and search for "Khalidi," you will find the answers to your questions. It isn't necessary to relitigate this. --GHcool (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I did that. On March 28, 2015, User: Zerotalk cited Khalidi p. 97. The next comment, from User:Huldra agreed. You then seemed to have dismissed these with "The article is acceptable as it is currently. Thanks for your help Zero."

You dismiss the Zochrot source I added as "incorrect" without citing anything.NYCJosh (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not dismiss them. One of them (I don't remember which) added most of what is currently the first paragraph of the "History" section and cited to Khalidi on p. 97. After that, I wrote that the article is acceptable as it is and thanked Zero. I implore you to allow the article to stand in its stable and politically neutral way that it has stood for five whole years to the satisfaction of everyone on Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your reason for excluding the fact that KG is located on land where AF once stood is unsatisfactory, in view of the Khalidi and Zochrot sources. The article as written already acknowledges this fact based on the first source. In fact, you have offered no WP rules-based objection. Maintaining the status quo is not an objection or else WP articles would never get improved.NYCJosh (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't own the Khalidi book. Do you? If you do, can you scan and upload the relevant chapter so I can see where/if he says that modern day KG is built upon the site of Al-Faluja (as opposed to being in the greater area of the Faluja pocket)? --GHcool (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the history of the earlier towns need to be described here in detail. The previous occupants of the land and where they went are relevant, though. Khalidi has this (verbatim): p108 (article on 'Iraq Manshiyya) — "in 1954, Qiryat Gat (128113) was established on village lands". p97 (article on al-Faluja) — "The Israeli town of Qiryat Gat (128113) was established on the lands of 'Iraq Manshiyya between that village and al-Faluja; it has now spread onto the lands of al-Faluja as well". This information should be in the article. Incidentally, I have a 1942 official map showing the village boundaries and a 1957 official map showing the Qiryat Gat growing up just to the west of the ruins of 'Iraq el Manshiya, all matching Khalidi's description perfectly. Zero^talk 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not mind quoting Khalidi verbatim in the body of the article (with proper citation, of course). What I object to is the claim that Kiryat Gat was built upon the ruins of Al-Faluja or that Al-Faluja was renamed Kiryat Gat as some sort of colonialist thing or some such fiddle faddle. --GHcool (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Zero Thanks for the detailed citations and the info about the map. Also, I agree with your sentence "The previous occupants..."

GHcool I am restoring my contribution. I will avoid the use of the term "colonialism" and just stick to the facts as fully supported by RS.NYCJosh (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

And I removed it again. The problem with NYCJosh's contribution is that it is irrelevant to the article. This information belongs in the Al-Faluja article (where it indeed already is).

Zero had a better idea when he wrote, "I don't think the history of the earlier towns need to be described here in detail." He quoted Khalidi: "The Israeli town of Qiryat Gat (128113) was established on the lands of 'Iraq Manshiyya between that village and al-Faluja; it has now spread onto the lands of al-Faluja as well." I wrote, "I would not mind quoting Khalidi verbatim in the body of the article (with proper citation, of course)." --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Zero correctly wrote that "The previous occupants of the land and where they went are relevant." How the people located in the area fled to make it safe to launch KG is quite relevant to the history of KG.NYCJosh (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We agree that Zero was correct when he wrote "The previous occupants of the land and where they went are relevant." The error NYCJosh makes is that he assumes that it is relevant to Kiryat Gat. It is not. It is relevant to Al-Faluja (where it indeed already is). Kiryat Gat was established about a mile away from the where the tragic events of 1948 took place. It spread onto that area by the 1990s. --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt Zero meant it's relevant to ANOTHER article.

Typically, the Israeli leadership preferred to establish settlements a little bit away from existing Arab villages so there would be a margin of security for the population and room for natural growth of the new settlement. A mile distance would have afforded neither. (In fact, this natural growth of KG continued fast and had Al-Faluja stayed where it was and also grown at a rate at which other Israeli Arab villages grew during that time, KG would have been crammed in even before 1992.) So the clearing out of al-Faluja was an important event for KG.NYCJosh (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are no further objections (grounded in WP-rules), I will restore my contribution in its most recent form. If you participated in this discusson (e.g. GHcool, Zero) and have no further comment now then please don't delete or edit my contribution to the article. That would be sneaky and lacking in GF. NYCJosh (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No, please don't. When I wrote "The previous occupants of the land and where they went are relevant", I meant relevant to this article (and also to the articles on those former villages of course). However, that doesn't mean that all the details of how those villages were depopulated should be here as well. It would be out of step with our usual practice. The Palestinian villages should be named, their depopulation and the year should be noted, and the relationship of their village lands to KG's land should be given. The rest is for wikilinks. Overall I am mostly happy with this version. The only thing I suggest is that "Faluja pocket" be written into it somehow as it was precisely this location and that's interesting. Zero^talk 14:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Zero and I rarely agree on anything, but I'm excited to say that I completely agree with him here. This version is acceptable to me. --GHcool (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)