It should be treated as nothing less than a declaration of war against the rest of the world. The choice of weapon in this war started by Japan is not guns, missiles or atomic bombs, but a collective sense of determination emulating that of Jewish hunters pursuing those responsible for the Holocaust.
History is important because it serves as a reminder of past mistakes and helps prevent similar ones being made. In this sense, the latest Japanese claim to Dokdo may be looked at in years to come as the seed that led to new generations of Japanese having an inaccurate sense of history, perhaps encouraging them to repeat the actions of their forefathers without worrying about the ramifications. Therefore, this might not be an isolated issue that only affects Korea but one that could tie up the rest of the world into an even bigger knot.
With Japan the aggressor in this war of history, a two-pronged campaign to defeat it is needed.
First, at the first point of contact, Korea should take a stand. Its first mission is to get itself ready for a long war of attrition, meaning that it should refrain from reacting to every action and comment made by Tokyo. Secondly, politicians must not assume that Japan will change and behave.
For the rest of the world, it should be kept in mind that Korea is the first line of defense and offense, and that if it crumbles, it would soon be the turn of other countries.
For starters, let's try to derail Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
I don't have time to go through all the bullshit that finds its way into that local paper, but will just call your attention to one of their more irritating columnists---and that's saying a lot. Columnist Kim Heung-sook has written on Japan before, once implying that the harassment of a Japanese student was justified because of the Liancourt Rock issue, and later fantasizing about Japan being annihilated by North Korea.
You know, the thing about "sensitive issues" is that they're sensitive for more than one side. If there were only one party interested, the issue wouldn't be "sensitive" it would be "popular."