Ariel Sharon has declared, Israel is at war! He made that declaration March 31 as the Israeli death toll rose yet again as a result of Palestinian suicide bombers who take their own lives in a desperate attempt to bring world attention to the noose that the Israeli government has around the necks of the Palestinian people.

Sharon�s declaration echo�s a similar one made by U.S. President George Bush when he defined the guiding principle for this nation�s foreign policy for the duration of his administration and perhaps beyond. President Bush said the U.S. is at war against terrorism. Sharon declared that Israel is at war against Palestinian attacks that generally have been defined as terrorism.

When Bush justifiably declared his stance against the kind of terror that brought down the World Trade Center and destroyed a section of the Pentagon, he left the target of his war so ambiguous that he could eventually go to war against any entity he wants to. All he has to do is define the enemy as terrorists.

And while the world watches in utter disbelief the escalation of the carnage in Israel as a result of suicide bombers, many world capitals debate whether these martyrs are hate-filled fanatics or revolutionaries driven to the extreme under the brutality of harsh oppression by Israel.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sharon�s declaration of war and the liberties such a declaration allows him�under the laws of his government and international law�raises the ante of the consequences for nations of the world.

We have already seen that Sharon is a reckless character who has no respect for international law as he has attacked the headquarters of a head of state and holds that head of state a prisoner in his own home. We won�t even mention that the international community does not have the courage to sanction Israel for its international aggression.

The problem the international community will soon confront, if Sharon is not checked, is the escalation of war beyond the borders of Israel/Palestine. This war will engulf the Arab world and the West will be duty-bound, after all diplomatic means have failed, to enter the fray on the side of Israel.

Russia, which empathized with the loss of U.S. lives as a result of Sept. 11, lent her support to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. But she has had second thoughts about that support as she has watched the U.S. establish a military presence and logistic support in the region.

Russia will be pulled into the Arab/Israeli conflict, but on which side?

China�which was on the brink of full-blown hostilities with the U.S. not long ago after one of her planes was downed while tracking a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane�will be drawn into the conflict. But on which side?

President Bush allowed Sharon to prevent Yasser Arafat from attending a recent Arab Summit in Lebanon, a summit that could have been a gigantic step toward peace as the Saudi Peace Plan would have become the start for serious dialogue in the land-for-peace discussion.

President Bush allows Sharon to bulldoze Arafat�s headquarters and hold him imprisoned in rooms of his own home without water and, at times, electricity.

Sure, the Bush administration publicly said it wanted Arafat to be allowed to attend the summit. But Bush could have assured his attendance by threatening to sanction Israel as the U.S. does so well to her "third world enemies." Why didn�t Bush threaten to withhold some of the billions in aid or some of the military assistance she gives to Israel? Did Bush really want Arafat to go, or does the tail really wag the dog? Why is the world community so hesitant to send in some kind of peacekeeping force?

If Mr. Sharon�s declared "war" results in blood of the armies of the world flowing up to "the horse�s bridal", then we have our leaders to blame.