Talk:Elon Peace Plan

Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this webpage:
 * http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/eng/defaulteng.html

This page is now listed on Votes for deletion/copyvio. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page (to access the talk page, click on Discuss this page in the sidebar). If there was no permission to use this text then please either replace this message with at least a good stub and an external link or leave this page to be deleted. (NOTE: unless a stub replaces this text, deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page).

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Thanks, snoyes 07:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I remove the copyrighted material. Der Eberswalder 07:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From VFD

 * Elon Peace Plan. The article is nothing more than an advertisement for a program of ethnic cleansing by someone at the far right of Israeli politics.  It used to be a modest and reasonably nonpartisan report on this (quite unimportant) "plan", but a fanatic has taken it over and deleted everything that is not straight out of the plan's propaganda blurb.  I tried to prevent this, to no avail.  We should not allow Wikipedia to be used for political activism in such a blatant fashion. --Zero 04:51, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the solution to an edit war. Would some sysop please revert and protect the page while this is sorted out? Tualha 05:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some NPOV editing would be good. Especially about "Population transfer was used successfully between the Greeks and the Turks in Thrace". It should be changed to something like "according to...". Optim 06:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * That's some pretty crazy shit. It's basically implying that the Armenian genocide, Pontian genocide, and related "population transfers" by the Turks were something that should be emulated.  Wow.  --Delirium 07:19, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, put into NPOV and protect once its properly edited. PMC 07:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page describes a serious attempt to solve the core issues of the conflict.  NPOV editting should be performed as needed.  Please note the current form of the page, with exerpts from the plan document, was done in response to Zero0000 claim that the page did not reflect the content of the plan. OneVoice 11:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? OneVoice is editing this page so as to promote this "plan".  He admits it!  Can someone please explain to him what Wikipedia is about? --Zero 12:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to pages needing attention. -- Finlay McWalter 12:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. --Raul654 04:09, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This page should be reverted to the last edit by OneVoice. That edit contains no editorial material. Rather the last edit by OneVoice matches the format and NPOV nature of The People's Voice peace plan page. That page indiates the source/founder of the plan, provides the principles of the plan, ands contain a link to the full text where readers can obtain more information and form their own views of the merits and practicality of the plan. The external links section contain links to analyses of the plan. The Geneva Accord page exhibits characteristics similar to those of The People's Voice, similar to the Road Map (which also includes some history sections, perhaps due the Road Map being the currently operative peace process with the greatest amount of international sponsorship) and proposed for Elon Peace Plan. The current page is POV. OneVoice 20:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by "editorial material"? I'm afraid I don't understand how exactly this page is POV. &mdash;MIRV (talk) 00:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Most importantly, the Elon Peace Plan is designed to address what it sees as the fundamental causes of the current conflict:
 * 1) The Palestinian demand for the right of return of refugees to areas within the State of Israel.
 * 2) The rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees.
 * 3) The status of Jerusalem.
 * 4) The nature of the Palestinian state and its borders.

The page as it currently exists, ignores this.

Nearly all other plans are incremental ala the Road Map. Incrementalism has resulted in current situation. Since the Oslo Accords, the situation has not improved for Palestinian living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or the refugee camps of several Arab countries.

The current page states implies that all the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be forced out of those areas. This is not what the plan says. The plan says: "In the framework of the eradication of terror, the terrorist heads and inciters will be deported from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The dismantling of the refugee camps, part of the rehabilitation process, will reduce the Arab population in these areas and lessen the poverty and density in the Palestinian Arab towns. The Arab population that will continue to reside within the new areas of the State of Israel, will benefit from the civil rights conferred by Israel, but its citizenship will be Palestinian, and its political rights will be actualized in Amman." Regarding this dismantling of the refugee camps it says: "The dismantling of the camps - combined with the establishment of a mechanism to rehabilitate the refugees - will strike a mortal blow to the terror infrastructure."

All Palestinians in Jenin, Nablus, Hebron, Jerusalem, etc are to remain in their homes. Only the Palestinians in the refugee camps will move to Jordan. Once again, they will receive Jordanian citizenship (unilateraly removed by Jordan on 31st July 1988 ) and a Marshall Plan that will replace the squalor and humiliation that they have suffered for the last 50 years. The plan further says "The relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees in Arab lands will complete the population exchange process begun in the 1940s....The resettlement of these refugees and their descendants will complete a historic circle of population exchange. This will result in the emergence of countries where the majority of their population shares a common nationality and culture." This is better than the treatment that they have received to date in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt (which used to claim Gaza), Jordan, etc.

No other plan tries to address the issue of what to do with the people that will remain in refugee camps. The host countries have not accepted them. The host countries have given no indication that they will ever accept them. It appears to be unrealistic given the statements of Israeli politicians to expect that the refugees will enter Israel, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

The current page claims "The primary motivation for the plan is the demographic trend that will make Jews a minority in the area west of the Jordan River occupied by Israel before the end of the first decade of the 21st century." This is not borne out be reading the plan or its commentary on the web site. It may be true, but it is not to be found in the text.

It currently appears that Israel will implement a uni-lateral separation which will leave the refugees in the camps, the remains Palestinians without a state, without hope, and will the opportunity to improve their situation. Once the fence goes up, the Palestinians will be locked out of the place that they most often turn to for jobs and health care (among other services).

Please read the plan and compare it with the wikipedia page. OneVoice 02:02, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No time for a full read-through, but there was one point that jumped out during a quick skim:


 * The plan does indeed state, as one of the reasons that a Palestinian state should not exist in the West Bank and Gaza, that the Palestinians there "represent a constant demographic danger to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state", so. . . Did you miss that part? At most, one can disagree with the characterization of the demographic factors as the primary motivation, but it is one of the reasons for the plan. More later. &mdash;MIRV (talk) 02:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes I did miss that in going thru the plan now and writing the above, thank you for pointing it out. I will strive not to make that error or similar errors in the future. Please look at the fundamentals it tries to address and consider how else these might be addressed and which of the plans out there addresses them. OneVoice 02:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, a couple of comments. You wrote:
 * The current page states implies that all the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be forced out of those areas.

but the article simply states:
 * the now stateless Palestinians will become citizens of Jordan.

and quotes the plan itself which says:
 * ''"...the international community will allocate resources for the completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948"

I don't see this implied here unless of course "exchange of populations" implies what all, in which case the plan itself misrepresents its own aims, which would be highly peculiar indeed.

You wrote:
 * Most importantly, the Elon Peace Plan is designed to address what it sees as the fundamental causes of the current conflict:


 * The page as it currently exists, ignores this.

The fundamental causes, particularly the refugee problem, are well covered in Arab-Israeli conflict and its offspring. They don't need to be rehashed here. All we need is a succint review of Elon's proposal, which, IMO, is what we have.


 * Regarding this matter, I have removed the principles of The People's Voice to match. We should list the principles that each plan states it is based upon, but failing to do that we should not give preferential treatment to any plan. OneVoice 13:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One last point. You quoted the plan above:


 * The Arab population that will continue to reside within the new areas of the State of Israel, will benefit from the civil rights conferred by Israel, but its citizenship will be Palestinian, and its political rights will be actualized in Amman.

I find this a bizarre contradiction. Isn't an important civil right be able to vote for one's government? How can they vote if they are not citizens? This is not usually what we consider a democracy. This is why Americans got rid of the British. Taxes without representation. Remember the Boston Tea Party?. -- Viajero 10:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not "a civil right to vote for one's government", the government that enforces the laws under which one lives. One may choose to live in a country where one is not a citizen. This is not uncommon, indeed it is the most common way in which people become citizens of the United States. They move to the country, are subject to the laws of the United States as excerised by hte government of the United States. The immigrants are without the right to vote. Should they become citizens of the United States, they receive the right to vote.

Voting is a right limited to the citizenry, just as certain obligations are limited to the citizenry, such as conscription for military service. Conscription is non-voluntary, non-citizens may volunteer. A democracy made up of its citizens. The Americans came to view themselves as forming a distinct entity from Great Britain. Once that happened separation was inevitable be it through revolution or the Canadian method. OneVoice 13:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Strong != POV
An anon changed the following text:


 * this plan is considered irrelevant to the point of ridicule by the vast majority of Israelis and all Palestinians

I reverted his change. The fact that the article is using strong words does not make it POV. In fact, for something the vast majority of Israeli regard as a bad joke, the description in the article is accurate, and a weaker description would be POV. Gadykozma 12:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jordanian demographics
Israel (if it was you), discussion of Jordanian demographics belongs under Jordan. If you want to discuss them here, denote it clearly as arguments of the plan's supporters, and bring the opposing arguments too. Read the neutrality policy. However, it would probably be best to just do without it, the various "views" sections (e.g. in Arab-Israeli conflict) are not Wikipedia's greatest. Gadykozma 12:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you to Gady
I would like to thank Gady for cooperating with me in the process of improving the document more or less to our mutual satisfaction. Thanks!


 * Thank you! It was very enjoyable working with you and I hope you will carry this attitude of yours to other areas of Wikipedia. We could use it everywhere. Gadykozma 00:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Debating the relevance of the Elon Peace Plan
Gady, at 12:09, on 9 Oct 2004 you wrote "There is no need to discuss this plan here or anywhere. It is irrelevant." Who are you to say whether it is relevant or irrelevant? What you have done is taken an encyclopoedic entry and converted it into a stub. I would like you or I to revert it back to the way it was before you excised the paragraph I modified. Let us discuss the matter here before either of us takes such action.

V.N. 2004.10.10


 * There are only two important facts about the Elon Peace Plan: that it advocates transfer; and that it has no support inside or outside Israel. Now, my view is that a stub is fine. If you want to extend this stub with additional information, that's also fine. However, this additional information must not conceal these two crucial facts. Adding a "supporters-opposers" section would make the plan look as if it is a serious issue of debate. In fact, it isn't. So, if you want to add such a section, you might want to start it as follows:


 * Even though the Elon Peace Plan enjoys little following... some still think it is important to debate it's pros and cons on a theoretical basis... some say... opponents say...


 * and so on. The point is not the precise wording but that the views section would not give the plan credability it does not enjoy in real life. Gadykozma 19:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Gady. Personally, I think you are exaggerating the lack of support for the plan, but I cannot deny that the support for the plan is at present from a minority. I think that will change in time. Who knows what the future will bring?

I will work within the framework you kindly have suggested. If in the future the degree of support for the plan increases to well beyond the current 1.5% or thereabouts that I presume it has based on results of the last Israeli election, (say, 5% 10%?) then I trust you will agree the wording should change to reflect that.

V.N. (later that same day)

I just checked the popular vote for the National Union (which Moledet is part of). According to my source, which I will add to the article's external links, they got 3% of the vote in the last election. That's twice what I thought (1.5%). V. N. 5:18 PM ET 2004.10.10


 * V.N., I definitely meant that you would replace ... with your own text! Anyway I rewrote it in a shorter style, and gave the opponents of the plan a more realistic representation of their views. I still think the page is better without this new section, but if you disagree we can keep it that way.


 * As for the Israeli elections, this is a tricky point. The National Union advocates transfer on its platform, but not so predominantly in its propaganda (I was actually surprised to find that it does). Transfer is usually associated with Moledet, which never got more than 2% of the votes. So it's a little difficult to say how much support this notion currently has. Gadykozma 22:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I realized where you got your statistics from. This site is woefully outdated. Try http://www.knesset.gov.il/ (I hope they have statistics in English too). Gadykozma 22:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gady, I appreciate your willingness to include a presentation of opposing views, and admire the way you set it apart from the more objective section of the entry.

I welcome your restating the POV of those, like yourself, who object to Elon's peace plan. I certainly would not have been able to fairly present that side.

I hope you will agree that it would be more fair to have a person like myself who is an advocate of the plan put forward the wording for the pro side. The way you reworded it, the thing sounds like a euphamism for something like the Nazi "Final Solution" plan for world Jewry. With all due respect, Gady, reading it as you wrote it made me want to retch.

Thanks also catching the problem with the statistics. I went to the link you suggested, and it had an English link, but either something is wrong with the site or my iMac's browser needs an upgrade.

V. N. 2004.10.10 7:51 ET

I just realized why reading your wording of the pro-side led to my visceral reaction. It is because in the main body of the text there is no mention of what would become of those new Jordanians living in Israel who refused the invitation to leave. I must fill in that blank. It is an important matter to address. Without that being addressed, people might assume the worst. V.N. 2004.10.10 8:01 PM ET


 * V. N., this is the third time you have returned this exact text into the article. I will now state explicitly what was until now only implicit. This text is political propaganda and is inapropriate for Wikipedia. Putting a "according to.." before it does not solve the problem. Please reword it without using any terms such as "justice", "full rights" and so on. I won't delete it just yet, but it cannot stay in the article in its current form.


 * BTW, are you quoting? If you are, please use quotes and state the source. Thanks. Gadykozma 00:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not quoting. I had quoted before and then learned that that was not allowed. So I paraphrased the quotes into my own words.

I'll try to make what is up there now more acceptable to you, but I don't know how well I will be able to do so. I'm going to give it a shot right now. Please let me know what you think. If we need a third person's opinion, perhaps you can find someone in the Wiki community who has not taken a side in this issue (if that's the way these things are handled here).

V.N. 11:31 PM ET 2004.10.11

Well, Gady, I did make an effort. I hope you find it acceptable.

BTW, if you look at the full text of the Elon Peace plan, I think you will easily find the four points that I paraphrased into my own words. It is just at the bottom of the "introduction" and just above the "key principles".

Gady, I searched on Google for supporting documentation that Ze'ev had advocated forced transfer. I could not find anything credible. The best I could find was a quote from Palestinian Authority Minister of Culture and Information, Yasser Abed Rabbo:

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0062.htm

I thought of adding it to the External Links, but decided to present it to you as an option instead. I certainly would be very happy to see some External Links that contained actual quotes taken from Ze'ev. Even if they were translations from Hebrew, it would help support your allegations. If the remarks occurred so long ago that there is no record of them on the internet, a reference to a specific edition of any newspaper or magazine wherein he was quoted would be helpful for the sake of an accurate presentation of the historical record.

V.N. 12:21 AM 2004.10.12


 * I made a few changes to the 4 points. Let me explain them briefly.


 * Using "rehabilitation" in this context is really cynical, since Palestinians refugees interpret this term as the Right of return.
 * "National expression" does not say anything except hint that Jordan is the Palestinian state. I removed the entire clause.
 * The demographic issue is only relevant after annexation. Within the current official borders Jews are more than an 80% majority.


 * The issue of Zeevi plans should be discussed on Rehavam Zeevi, not here. Thanks for digging up the link &mdash; I moved it there. Without giving any references, let me just say that this came up as a surprise to nobody. Zeevi was always vague about this issue and almost exclusively talked about "transfer" without referring to how it would be executed. It was traditionally other Moledet members' job to soften his claims and explain that the transfer was voluntary, raising more or less absurd plans how to "convince" the Palestinians to do it (I vaguely remember a proposal to give 20000$ each...). After his death, the term "voluntary" became more prominant in the party's discourse. Gadykozma 11:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, you are allowed to quote, this depend on the size of the quote. Copying large blocks of text is a copyright violation. Citing a paragraph or two comes under "fair use". In the case above, where you just took the 4 points and reformulated them slightly, it would probably have been better to make it a quote, and cite the source (now this is no longer relevant). Gadykozma 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good job, Gady. :-) I think we've got it settled nicely for the next little while; probably at least until the next Israeli election.

BTW, I don't know whether you meant US$20,000 or some other figure (New Israeli Shekels? British Pounds Sterling? Euros?), but whatever amount the current Israeli government seriously offers to Jewish residents of Gaza to transfer out will set a notable precedent if the Elon Peace Plan gains popularity.

V.N. 10:07PM ET 2004.10.12


 * Thanks. I'm happy its settled for now. As for the sum, I don't remember it, but like anything else related to the "voluntary transfer" idea it was a bad joke &mdash; sufficiently large to be a completely unrealistic (they probably called on the US or something like that to pay the bill) but not sufficiently large so as to convince anyone to evacuate... I guess to find more details you would have to search Israeli media from the late 90s. I don't know how this can be done conviniently... Gadykozma 02:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever it was before, I would expect it to be more like what the 7,500 Jewish settlers in Gaza are being offerred to vacate before November 1, 2005. $115,000 is a lot more than $20,000 (if that was the previously talked about figure). And my understanding from what I've been reading since my last post here in Talk, the $115,000 is just an advance on the actual figure that would be offered to the Jewish settlers to leave. Maybe the actual amount would be twice that? Hmmm. $230,000. The thought of it makes me wish I was living in Gaza just so I could move out! ;-)

I hope the following link works for you. It is from the The Star-Ledger out of New Jersey dated 15th of September, 2004 but even if it doesn't, you probably will be getting the updates on the Gaza vacating proposal fairly regularly anyhow, yes?

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1095229938141180.xml

VN 10:49AM ET 2004.10.13


 * Actually, talk pages are not supposed to be used for general discussion... just stuff that has some probability of actually improving the page. However, I might as well answer. There is no need to speculate about how much the settlers in Gaza will get. We have the precedent of the settlers in the Sinai. They received stupendous amounts of money. I heard numbers in the vicinity of $500000 per family. However, we might as well assume 115000$ as a working amount. There are more than 2,000,000 people in the Palestinian territories. That's 230,000,000,000$ (230 Giga dollars? $$2.3*10^{11}$$$?) I sure can't pay it. Gadykozma 23:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Gady, for your reply, especially in light of my breach of protocol. My apologies. If you wish, please edit out our speculative discussion so we are not at odds with standard practices here. I am under the impression such editing is within your power as a registered member of Wikipedia, which I am not.

As for making the article better, I happened to notice some imperfections in the phrasing of the last paragraph you wrote. I will take a stab at editing it. If you feel I botched it, please revert it or whatever you will. My goal in taking this action is just to have what you are saying be easily understood; nothing more. I tend to follow Strunk & White's book Elements of Style when editing.

V.N. 1:28 AM ET 2004.10.14

Polls
I have added relevent information to the plan. If you find something wrong with my sources than discuss it here. I have provided for sources on every level and I will continue to post the same corrections to this biased, POV introduction (from apolagetics against it) until it is NPOV.

If you have some problems with it list them here. You are not the sole arbiter of this website.

That is all.

--Guy Montag


 * Generally Wikipedia does not site polls. Polls are a dime a dozen and their results vary widely by the precise formulation of the question and the events of last Tuesday. Does Britannica site polls? I don't think so. It's simply not encyclopaedic. This particular poll, BTW, is a fine example of why not to quote polls in Wikipedia.


 * Further, even if this poll would be worth a mention on Wikipedia &mdash; which it isn't &mdash; it wouldn't be here. There's nothing in it about the Elon Peace Plan. It is a general poll about transfer, so it belongs in a general transfer page. Uffish 02:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. An opinion poll presents a viewpoint into the minds of the Israeli public and whether they few the idea of tranfer favorably. Citing that the Elon plan has no support when 60% ,cited from a very prestigious source, of the Israeli public support encouraging the transfer of Israeli Arabs, and 46% support transfering Palestinian Arabs out of the territories, speaks alot about the political viability of any transfer plan. 60% is an overwhelming majority and I doubt very much that such opinions documented by a reputable source, would change overnight.

Guy Montag 08:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You haven't actually addressed my points. I claim that polls are unecyclopedic, you only said that this poll is important. Important is not the same as encyclopedic. An encyclopedia should aim for something of lasting importance and meaning. See Avoid statements that will date quickly. Now, the Steinmatz Institute, for example, publishes a poll every month with basically the opposite results. What are we going to do? Update this page every month? Delete ones that are one year old? This is why polls are unwelcome here &mdash; you are welcome to stroll around other parts of Wikipedia and check for yourself.


 * Further you have completely ignored the fact that this poll does not even mention the Elon Peace Plan. General information about the notion of transfer in Israel should go to Moledet, this is currently the most appropriate page.


 * BTW, try not to add spurious newlines when you edit. It makes the diff operation much harder to do. That's how your change to "West Band and Gaza" got deleted. Uffish 03:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right I agree with the new edit and I see your point on temporary polls. I was more unnerved by the addition of POV terms than the deletion of the poll.

Guy Montag, different computer.

this article in hebrew
I was surprised to find out that there is no Hebrew Wikipedia page corresponding to this one. I posted a note to Hebrew talk:Benny_Elon asking if someone could make a page on it. I'm not sure where to go to ask for someone to make that page. Suggestions?
 * Epl18 13:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked. It seems to be there now. 74.103.60.55 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Elon" should be written "Alon"
"Elon" should be written "Alon" Since "Alon" is similar to pronouncing of alone. and the letter "e" does not state the actual syllable that is supposed to be. it is to be Alon as pronounced for example Affair. just a little note, I'm Isreali and my name is Alon and I do know this KM, and I guess I should know how to write my own name , trust me on that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.238.133 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality
the article is clearly POV and biased. it starts with the name, it's incredibly cynical to call this proposal a "peace plan". it's irrelevant that the creators of the plan have given it this label. furthermore, the article reads like an apology of this "plan". --Severino (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the plan's name. You can disagree with it, or with the prospects it will actually bring peace, but surely you realize that is just your POV. Many people think other "Peace plans", e.g. the Road map for peace are equally cynical, and yet that's what we call that article, because that's the name of the plan. Other than the title, what specific changes are you recommending to remove the perceived 'POV'? NoCal100 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know yet the exact wikipedia rules for such cases. but when al quaida calls one of it's terrorist acts "operation xy", the article about this assault here won't be refeered to with this name (for good reasons). similar is true with many names the nazis gave their operations and plans (not at least because of the cynical character of the name in relation to the accomplishment or intention of the plan/operation). beside that, there's generally not enough distance between this plan and the article about it, as i mentioned above. for example, to realize the plan, the palestinians would have to be deported to another state (the crucial point of mr. elons plan) or further disenfranchised, a fact which is clouded in the article by using weasel words. the paragraph about "the case presented by proponents of the plan" reads like copied from the national unions hp, using words like "moderate states" or "demographic threat". the paragraph about the critics of the plan on the other hand is much too short and cites only one israeli (no palestinian, jordanian,..) who himself is from the far right, uses settler terms like judea and samaria and whoose main problem with the plan is his concern about the settlers. there has to be also more background information about elon and his party. --Severino (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It;s fairly clear that Nazi operations and plans are not a better comparable than alternative peace palns, but you;re wrong on that count as well - have a look at Operation Nordlicht, Operation Edelweiss, or Operation Barbarossa. The article makes clear that the plan "concerned the transfer of Palestinians" - whta alternate formulation woudl you propose? Feel free to add more background information about Elon and his party - if that information is relevant to the article's topic, but that is not a reason to tag it as "POV". NoCal100 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

to no surprise you did not get my points. for example, the title of the article is not the problem - if it would not be presented as it would indeed be a peace plan (first line: "...is a solution..."). in the articles you mentioned and other comparable ones the character and the goals of the plans/operations are expressed differentiated and not in the terms of the initiator(s).--Severino (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's indeed not surprising, since you keep changing your points - you first wrote "the article is clearly POV and biased. it starts with the name", and now you say "the title of the article is not the problem". Well, I'm happy to hear the name is no longer a problem. What is the specific change you would like to make to the first line? In a comparable article (Road map for peace), the first line says "The "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed ...". How about if we change the words "is a solution" to "is a plan to resolve"? NoCal100 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

the name is not the problem IF it's made clear that it is indeed NOT a peace plan. the road map is not comparable to the elon dream nor is the article about it on the english wikipedia. i named a couple of points which should be changed in my last comments regardless that you ignored it.--Severino (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it is not a peace plan? You may not thing it's a good plan, but the there are those that do. I've made a suggetsion on how to improve the sentence you complained about - if you are not going to engage in substantial dialog, I'll simply remove the POV tag. NoCal100 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i complained about other points (you ignored) as well. remove the tag if wikipedia rules entitle you to do so. i will not discuss ("substantial" or otherwise) with somebody who claims this is a peace plan.--Severino (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elon Peace 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/20060920195231/http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org:80/politics10.htm to http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org/politics10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elon Peace 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/20041011081038/http://www.moledet.org.il/english/index.html to http://www.moledet.org.il/english/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)