The article Allon Plan, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from three arbitration cases (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO). The current restrictions are:
Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.
All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification.
The exceptions to the 500/30 restriction are:
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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. TewfikTalk 14:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place for Disengagement conspiracy theories, and I reiterate the point I made above. TewfikTalk 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]
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. Zerotalk 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."  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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 08:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
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)