Why doesn't Arafat just declare war already?

I agree with CKDext- Guerrila warfare, which confines itself to attacking military, or military-industrrial targets is one thing. Terrorism attacks folks regardless of who they are an what side they are on. Guerrila warfare is legitimate- terrorism is not. During an actual war, however, targets which are primarily civilian may be attacked- as both sides knwo who the enemy is and why the attacks are coming. True, it does not make such attacks RIGHT, but it does take them out of terrorism, and into acts of war. Killing POWs under certain conditions is also recognized as legitimate (tho unfortunate), and certainly, they are “military”. Once you have, as a nation, declared "war’ on another nation, you may attack as you see fit- within certain limits.

The Lusitania was a legit target- it carried war material, and was also listed in “Janes’ as an “auxilary cruiser”. It carried millions of .303 enfield rounds (as cargo), and had gunmounts. However, once war is declared, and you announce to nations that shipping will be sunk if it enters a 'war-zone”- it is OK to attack civilian ships.

Terrorism is cowardly, as the victims cannot strike back- the assailants are anon. And, Arafat does no “strapping of explosives” to HIS body- he just orders the bombing of another schoolbus.

To progress the debate :

What happens when the peace deal eventually falls through all the way? Here’s 2 possibilities :

  1. Arafat declares Palestinian statehood, torpedos be damned.

  2. In February, an Israeli national unity government is created and declares a unilateral Palestinian statehood. Israel then annexes all of Jerusalem, many adjacent settlements, and all of the Jordan Valley necessary for security.

Which causes less bloodshed?

I dunno. Barak may not be in power very long. Would a new leader in Israel comply with the peace deal, if one is worked out?

The debate as to whether or not the Lusitania was a civilian target has been moved to this thread.

The Lusitania, and civilian warfare

Daniel~, there seems to be a good deal of debate on the Web over whether the ship was indeed armed, and whether the whole thing was just a governmental conspiracy to drag the United States into the war.

I have a question. I could be wrong but after WWI Danzig was declared a free state and run by the UN…right? Why couldn’t a non-partisan UN secure the whole area?

Becuase there is only one UN, and it is not “non-partisan”- the general Assembly is run by 3rd world dictatorships that despise the USA and Isreal. One of the reasons we have not paid our UN 'dues" is that they are assessed based mainly on the “make the imperialist Yankee running dogs pay for all our programs” system.

Also, the UN was not created until after WW2, so it could have hardly run post WWI Danzig.