Talk:Allon Plan

Water

Israel wouldn't gain control of significant water resources from controlling the Jordan River Valley, as it already controlled (and utilised) the Jordan's source, the Sea of Galilee. The benefit argued by its proponents was the control of the Jordanian border in case of an Iraqi invasion from the east. Tewfik^Talk 14:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place for Disengagement conspiracy theories, and I reiterate the point I made above. Tewfik^Talk 06:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Security is quite often the motive for Israeli actions, like the occupation of the Golan Heights.

Is ascribing intelligent thought and rational planning to people in powerful positions always a "conspiracy theory"? (Apoligies for lousy html skills.) Plexusranger [Nov. 2006]

Can we get a picture?

I think a picture would be helpful.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plans

Were there any other plans made by Israelis for a 'solution' to their newly aquired territories ('newly' at the time)? Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Plans

Were there any other plans made by Israelis for a 'solution' to their newly aquired territories ('newly' at the time)? Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

note for later processing

Allon published his plan in an academic journal: "Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Oct., 1976), pp. 38-53. I will add details and probably an extra map unless someone else gets to it first. One thing missing from our article is that Allon's plan included a large strip of Sinai under Israeli control. Zero^talk 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

original research in explanation why it didn't come to pass

"This plan was not implemented strictly as subsequent governments of Israel created settlements outside of the Jordan rift. Shafir and Peled assert that this followed a change in the "settlement" paradigm, "[s]ince the possibility of peacefully closing the frontier detached the means of the military frontier from the goal of security, continued settlements became an end in itself, searching for a new justification." [1] The use of this and the wording are original research, given that it relies on a single source, and the beginning line before even mentioning the authors whom it cites simply asserts their interpretation of the authors, or implies that the authors of this POV book are definitive truth. I say only let the King Hussein quote stand, given this, and he is a more reliable source, given he was party to the talks on this.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an Israeli plan and the progress of its (lack of) implementation was in the hands of Israel. Hussein's refusal to cooperate is worth mentioning but it is only a fraction of the story. Your argument also contradicts Wikipedia's preference for third-party sources. Your continuous removal of relevant material sourced to reliable authors, rather than improving it if it is not presented ideally, is edit warring. I caution you to stop it. Zero^talk 05:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jordan had no role?? They were informed of it too and engaged in the negotiations. Why are your preferred analysts, who you agree with, with your bent, more important than the most important Jordanian party to the talks? Why are your sources not "third party," when Hussein was a first party? No one proved his quote false, or questioned it. But you can question Shafir and Peled's conclusions, its their POV. Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you have ever read the policy pages like WP:V and WP:RS. You need to argue on the basis of the rules, not on the basis of what you like or don't like. Zero^talk 08:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposal to Hussein failed because the Israelis would not be specific: "Hussein indicated that the negotiating channel was still open, but that he saw little hope of progress unless the Israelis became more forthcoming in what they were prepared to offer." https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v20/summary (source already cited)

The section should be modified to include that. Mcdruid (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Gaza and the Allon Plan

I could not find any evidence that Gaza was included in the Allon Plan. Unless someone has a RS for the contrary, I regard any map that connects Gaza with the Allon Plan Original Research. The fact that we can find such a map on the Web, without any reference, does not change that. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allon Plan. 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/20131107202118/http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Factsheet%202013/JORDANVALLEY%20FACTSHEET.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Factsheet%202013/JORDANVALLEY%20FACTSHEET.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Typo

In the text, "would remain" should be changed to "would retain". Sych (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan was never offered

Apparently some people think that this plan was actually presented to Egypt and Syria. It was not (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44254276#metadata_info_tab_contents.) Given the misinformation, that fact should be made explicit. Mcdruid (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. Yes, actually, upon inspection, apart from the various unsourced parts of the article, there also appears to be an extensive section in the middle that is sourced entirely to a Haaretz article that looks opinion-like. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Dead source, replacement

Hey, the Gush Emunim citation has a dead link. It's currently #10. I found a replacement for it that seemingly has the same span of text in it.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/political-parties-gush-emunim.htm

I'd add it myself but this article is protected extended and I'm a baby editor toobigtokale (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Separate 'Jordanian Option' art. is needed

An article on the Jordanian Option is needed.

1. The Jordanian Option preceded the Allon Plan or was formulated by others than Allon.
2. The Allon Plan was initially NOT supporting the Jordanian Option, but opposed it. So DISTINCT from it.
3. The concept of the Jordanian Option long survived the demise of the Allon Plan and is still invoked until present time.

Arminden (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)