Noah Franklin/Staff Writer PNW News
Israel was promised a peace partner. Now its military is being told to prepare for the possibility of fighting that partner’s armed forces in an all-out war. More than three decades after Oslo, that development deserves far more attention than another diplomatic statement about keeping the peace process alive.
On September 7, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had instructed the IDF to prepare for “all-out war” if Palestinian Authority security forces or associated bodies launch an October 7-style attack—or Israel knows with certainty that they are about to launch one—against Israeli forces and Jewish communities.
Consider what that means. The institution the world has treated as the foundation of a future Palestinian state now figures in Israeli military preparations as a potential source of the very nightmare Israelis vowed never to experience again.
The question practically asks itself: What happened to the promise of peace?
Oslo’s Unanswered Question
The Oslo process rested on an enormous gamble: that empowering Palestinian institutions, including armed security forces, would produce a dependable partner and greater security. Israelis were asked to accept tangible risks in exchange for promises about what those institutions would become.
Decades later, Katz is describing a potential campaign against PA officials, security structures, and terrorist infrastructure. His announced response would include evacuations from areas used to launch attacks and an ongoing IDF presence in evacuated territory.
This is a devastating challenge to the assumptions behind Oslo. If the institutions built to support peace could become the machinery of an assault, their diplomatic status offers Israeli families no protection.
Yet the international conversation repeatedly returns to Palestinian statehood as though recognition itself can resolve the security problem. A flag, a United Nations seat, and another round of solemn guarantees cannot answer the question that matters most: Who ensures those weapons never turn toward Israeli homes?
For Israelis, getting that answer wrong carries a price no foreign diplomat will personally pay.
The Threat Next Door
Americans can easily miss the geography behind this debate. Judea and Samaria—the biblical heartland commonly called the West Bank—are woven into a landscape where Israeli and Palestinian communities, roads, and strategic high ground sit in close proximity.
For Jewish families living there, the security debate concerns the road to school, the drive home from work, and whether help can arrive before attackers reach their neighborhood. Along the territory’s western edge lie communities close to Israel’s densely populated center. Jerusalem is directly entangled in that same geography.
Distance buys time. Israel has precious little room for a system that requires every warning to be correctly interpreted and every response to arrive on schedule.
October 7 demonstrated what happens when attackers seize the initiative and communities are left waiting for rescue. Imagining that kind of failure on another front should force urgent questions about readiness, weapons, and the assumptions governing Israeli security.
The comforting language of a peace process means very little to a parent trying to hold a safe-room door shut.
The Most Dangerous Assumption
The failure of October 7 should have permanently discredited the belief that overwhelming military strength guarantees civilian safety. Strength matters only when it is positioned, prepared, and authorized to protect people before attackers overwhelm them.
Israel needs enforceable limits on threatening military capabilities, serious scrutiny of armed organizations, and defenses capable of surviving surprise. Personnel involved in terrorism must face consequences. Preparations for attacks must be disrupted before they become funerals.
International approval cannot become the clock by which Israeli families receive protection.
Make The Advocates Answer
Every government pressing Israel toward Palestinian statehood should have to explain how its proposed arrangement would prevent another October 7. Who controls the weapons? Who removes commanders involved in terrorism? Who intervenes if armed factions seize institutions or a future leadership abandons cooperation?
And who acts when the guarantees fail?
These questions belong before recognition and concessions, while Israel still has the ability to insist on answers. Postponing them until a crisis erupts transfers the risk from negotiating rooms to ordinary families.
For Christians who care about Israel, concern for peace must include concern for the people expected to live with the consequences of diplomatic experiments. A proposal cannot be judged solely by how hopeful it sounds. It must be judged by whether it protects life when promises break down.
Katz has put a grave possibility before the public. The responsibility now is to ensure Israel’s preparations are strong enough to prevent that possibility from becoming another national tragedy.
Israel has already buried too many people after assumptions failed. It cannot afford another October 7.
