The Disgusting Ignorance of G20 Protesters

By: Robert D. Onley  

While protesters were blindly smashing windows, torching police cars, and causing unnecessary destruction in Toronto, a far more noteworthy story tragically slipped past the raging mobs of havoc-wreakers, and past many Canadians.

Two more Canadian soldiers were killed fighting in Afghanistan this weekend. Master Cpl. Kristal Giesebrecht, 34, and Pte. Andrew Miller, 21, were killed Saturday when their armoured vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan’s Panjwaii District, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City.

As protesters complained of having their “rights” deprived after being briefly “detained” by police, likely with good reason or as a precautionary measure, two Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price while serving their country overseas.

The contrast could not be more stark between the whiny, sickly teenagers and university students “fighting” against the “new world order,” and the brave medics who were literally fighting radical Islamic terrorists on the other side of the planet in one of the most backward, violent nations on earth.

Receiving a baton to the head or being shoved by riot police in order to preserve security and then complaining about it, inarguably pales in comparison to the Canadian soldiers who daily carry 40 kilograms of gear while truly marching in 40-degree Celsius heat, constantly on the lookout for an enemy that literally wants to kill them.

The “dramatic” pictures of mildly bloodied, pale and thin protesters are pathetic examples of an entirely purposeless generation of youth with nothing better to do than organize group temper tantrums in front of Canada’s finest police forces. The protesters’ chants and breathless declarations of solidarity against an invisible “corporate enemy” are disturbing indicators of people who know absolutely nothing of what it means to fight for a real cause.

With no deaths, no real injuries, and nothing to show for their protests, the Black-Bloc and other pseudo-anarchist groups are nonetheless claiming victory against the Canadian “police state” and all its alleged evils. But as the bodies of the two medics return home to Canadian soil today, the anarchists in Toronto this weekend are seen as merely representing the shameful and disgusting ignorance pervasive among the radical Left fringe.

For the anarchists, theirs’ is a world consumed with selfish (and hypocritical) counter-culture behavior, and a produce-nothing rabble-rousing infatuation with long-buried Marxist ideologies. Wearing Converse sneakers and black Levis jeans with iPod’s in the pockets, their chants against the capitalist world order and other darling causes of the Left, are as repulsive and moronic as they come.

For the soldiers, theirs’ is a life embodied by selfless and courageous action in the defense and promotion of the very freedoms and liberties that the idiotic protesters blithely claimed were stripped away. Wearing army boots and cargo pants, carrying C7 rifles in their hands, Canadian soldiers walk into the most dangerous situations on earth to help bring peace and security to a land and a people that have known nothing but war for generations.

Aside from the ubiquitous “Bring the Troops Home” signs, the absence of any acknowledgment of the sacrifice wrought in Afghanistan speaks to the selective ignorance of the protest crowd. Yes, there were many legitimate causes represented at the protests, many peaceful protesters and indeed protesting is entirely legal and can even be effective. This is not the issue.

The disconcerting reality is the fact that so many young men and women were entirely willing to publicly and violently resist a Summit whose very purpose is to address the myriad economic and social problems plaguing the world today. Without coordinating financial policy among the world powers, the global recession could very well get much worse, with devastating consequences for us all.

Thus the very tax-payer funded health-care and social services enjoyed by the protesters here in Canada would be endangered if not for progressive actions by world governments to stabilize and grow the global economy. Protesting international dialogue is akin to demanding a return to uncooperative self-interested nationalist policies, a dangerous and damning position.

Smashing the windows of legitimate businesses, armed with full stomachs and bloated egos, all while screaming nonsense about some secretive global agenda, is a far cry from the Canadian medics in a far away land helping Afghanis with little to eat and a nearly non-existent government, let alone basic health-care.

These same Afghanis could care less about the dubious anti-globalist claims of anarchists in Toronto, when their lives are daily threatened by a very real enemy in the Taliban, led by men who do not hesitate to murder fellow citizens for the most ludicrous of “offenses.”

Our globalized world requires — surprise — global coordination. In the same way, threats to our way of life from Islamic extremists demand international cooperation to defeat them. Quite unlike the protesters’ cowardly anonymous black garb, the grave multitude of problems facing the world today demand action by real men and women in uniform, whether police, fire or military.

Brave Canadians soldiers lost their lives helping revive an utterly desperate nation in Afghanistan while protesters recklessly and ignorantly made a mockery of the rights and freedoms that so many around the world are denied every day. For shame.

My interview with Joel C. Rosenberg at the Epicenter Conference 2010

Wow, what a weekend! I just arrived back in Toronto after heading to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the Epicenter Conference 2010, hosted by Joel C. Rosenberg, the American New York Times Best-Selling author and speaker.

On Friday afternoon I had the incredible privilege to interview Mr. Rosenberg for over half an hour for an article set to appear in Evangelical Christian magazine later this summer.

In the interview, we discussed the Iranian nuclear threat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic beliefs, Canada's relationship with Israel and Joel's work with The Joshua Fund, his non-profit charitable organization operating in Israel.

It was such a blessing and an honour to meet and interview Joel Rosenberg, as I have been reading his work for a number of years and highly regard his insights into current events. Joel was an advisor to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the late 1990's, and has worked for a number of other high public profile figures both in Washington and Jerusalem.

The Epicenter Conference itself was a moving experience, highlighted by the key-note address of current Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon. Mr. Yaalon offered amazing perspectives from inside the Israeli government on how Israel views the world and the threats facing the Jewish State. His remarks were a truly moving reminder of Israel's hostile circumstances.

I will be posting the full text of my interview with Joel Rosenberg later this week, as well as the accompanying article for Evangelical Christian magazine later this month.

"High-tech lessons and the G20 Summits"

My article below is based on my experiences at the G20 Youth Summit and was published today in the Windsor Star. Enjoy. - R.O.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"High-tech lessons and the G20 Summits"

BY ROBERT D. ONLEY, SPECIAL TO THE WINDSOR STAR - JUNE 26, 2010

This weekend, world leaders will gather in the fortress that is now downtown Toronto to create and co-ordinate policies on the most pressing issues facing the globe today. Given the controversy over the incredible costs of hosting the G20 Summit, the least that Canadians can hope for is a fruitful round of negotiations.

But these extravagant international events often wind up becoming nothing more than a pricey photo-op. Despite months of prep-work heading into their meetings, consensus tends to evaporate during negotiations when communication between rival leaders breaks down over issues of national self-interest. Is the world thus forever doomed to wasteful G20 Summits?

Not if the 2010 G8/G20 Youth Summit is any indication. From May 9-14, over 100 undergraduate and graduate students from the G20 nations met in Vancouver to participate as delegates in the 5th annual meeting of 20- to 30 year-old aspiring leaders.

This year's Youth Summit offered a look at the high-tech future of international dialogue, one dominated by social networking, instant messaging and online interaction.

As a Canadian, I had the unique privilege of representing Mexico as the Minister of Finance, due to the absence of national Mexican delegates and to an abundance of qualified Canadian applicants. The Finance Ministers' goal for the week was to reach consensus on two items: Creating a global financial regulatory model, and implementing comprehensive reforms for international financial institutions.

Prior to even meeting in Vancouver, delegates used Google Groups to debate potential agenda topics through a month-long process of daily e-mail discourse, which also allowed the Finance delegates get to know each other individually. By the time we met in Vancouver we had agreed on our agenda, facilitating what we hoped would be a focused round of negotiations.

Nonetheless, once the actual debates began in the beautiful Centre for International Dialogue at Simon Fraser University, the opening salvos from the delegates were generally nationalist, hard-line positions on financial policy. Most of our stated proposals offered little hope for consensus and set the table for a week-long session of teeth-pulling.

However soon after lunch on that first day, the selfish one-upmanship rapidly changed. Delegates recognized the potential for online conversation on our laptops and began exchanging Skype usernames. (Skype is an online chat program.) We then began engaging in the modern-day equivalent of trading private notes through sherpas. Except these 21st century 'notes' were silent, discrete, and imperceptible - they were digital.

With one group conversation for all of the youth Finance Ministers, our discourse shifted from unproductive verbal tit-for-tat, to hushed typing on our keyboards. While delegates spoke, real-time colour commentary poured onto our screens as arguments were picked apart and constructively criticized. The quiet, digital transfer of our thoughts through Skype was facilitating a parallel stream of constructive dialogue alongside our verbal exchanges.

But chatting through Skype was just the beginning, as delegates soon became Facebook friends and swapped Blackberry Messenger contact PINs. Now we were able to peer into the lives of our international "rivals", learning political views, group affiliations, and read their statements and publications. Together these provided further diplomatic back channels through which we could stealthily converse, scheme and debate, resulting in two very productive days of negotiations.

When it came time to draft our "Final Communiqué" -- which will be presented to the Finance Ministers at the actual G20 Summit in Toronto -- we utilized Google Documents. This browser-based application allows simultaneous online editing and conveniently eliminated the drawn-out haggling over wording and phrasing that often plagues drafting.

Use of these modern communication programs was not a method actively promoted by the Youth Summit organizers. Instead, after just a few hours of unproductive negotiations, we, the Finance Ministers at G8/G20 Youth Summit, turned to the forms of modern communication that we are already comfortable with in order to break diplomatic deadlock.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently joked that perhaps he and President Obama should conduct diplomacy via text messages. Indeed, some will say it is naive to suggest that our world leaders use Skype, Facebook, Google and Blackberrys to debate policy proposals during actual international negotiations. But is this really that farfetched?

The fact that the Internet and digital communication pervades nearly every aspect of life for the 20-something crowd suggests that tomorrow's leaders will not be content using only pen and paper at the 2030 G20 Summit. Perhaps then it is time today's national leaders caught up to the world youth's grasp of global communication technologies: We are ready to lead, are they ready to learn?

Robert D. Onley is a law student at the University of Windsor and can be followed on his website at robertonley.com
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star
http://www.windsorstar.com/opinion/op-ed/High%20tech%20lessons%20summits/3204790/story.html

Must-read article: “If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”

José Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, has written a masterfully eloquent article detailing why the West must support Israel. His article appeared in The London Times but can be read at the blog below.

http://lastbesthope.sayanythingblog.com/2010/06/20/if-israel-goes-down-we-all-go-down/

Here is a brief quote from “If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”:

"The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen..."

Where do you stand?

Report: Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

By: Robert D. Onley



This week the United Nations Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Resolution 1929 imposes severe restrictions on the Iranian regime's ability to conduct trade in supplies for their nuclear program. However almost immediately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the sanctions as a "used hankerchief" and threatened to eject UN weapons inspectors from Iran's nuclear sites.

Today, The Times Online reports that Saudi Arabia --another of Iran's avowed enemies-- has given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iranian nuclear sites and stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is arguably more threatened by a nuclear Iran than even Israel, but as the world's largest supplier of oil has much more economic interest at stake than Israel. Letting Israel do the "dirty work" and draw international condemnation is therefore a favourable move by the Saudi government.

Meanwhile Israel has been repeatedly threatened with destruction by the leaders in Iran. US President Obama has not ruled out American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly conducted in coordination with Israel, but appears very hesitant to shake up the Middle East worse than his predecessor. All of this puts enormous pressure on tiny Israel to conduct the largest scale unilateral pre-emptive military strike in its history.

In the past I've written here about the prospect of an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran. The consequences of such a strike will be undeniably severe for Israel and for the world, but the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is far more troubling. The fact that the Iranian leader so flippantly dismissed the latest round of sanctions suggests that Iran's nuclear weapons program is perhaps far enough along to be unaffected; in other words, it's already too late.


How long will Israel wait for these latest sanctions to take effect? How can any nation measure the effectiveness of sanctions anyway? Iran has shown nothing but reckless disregard toward the well-founded concerns of the international community, and proved its callousness once again this week. There is no shortage of proof that the Iranian regime is racing toward nuclear weapons capability - Resolution 1929 bears that out.


The million-dollar question then is this: when will the international community (notably the United States) admit that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? At what point will the world's leaders acknowledge that the only effective way to stop Iran is through targeted military strikes?


In the West it is almost taboo to suggest that it will be necessary to use to air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program. Indeed after the Iraq War, Barack Obama's Cairo speech and his promises for "change" across the diplomatic spectrum, opening up another theatre in the Middle East seems like a Bush-era pipe dream. This sentiment conveniently ignores the fact that right now, under the leadership of President Obama, the U.S. Air Force is conducting more drone air strikes than ever before. The only thing that has "changed" is the volume of missiles raining from the skies over Afghanistan and Pakistan. 


Thus while many commentators are slow to admit that air strikes may be the only remaining option for stopping Iran's nuclear visions, the pragmatic reality is that the equipment to do so is already in the region and technologically is more precise than ever before.


More critical for Israel, Obama's love-to-hate ally, is the fact that a pre-emptive strike represents a viable option buffeted by successful precedents. Two nations in the Middle East have had their nuclear programs stopped short by Israel. One of them, Syria, is a proud ally of Iran. In 2007, Syria's covert nuclear reactor was destroyed Israeli jets, while back in 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was forcefully stopped by pin-point Israeli air strikes. As I covered in another piece, Israel is not afraid to take such aggressive action. 


While those two raids were surgical successes, Iran's hidden nuclear sites present a far greater challenge for the Israeli Air Force, if in fact the IAF were to conduct such a mission. However given that Saudi Arabia is now reportedly granting Israel clearance to use Saudi airspace specifically for a strike against Iran, it is patently clear that Israel is not the only nation that believes air strikes may be the only way to truly stop the Iranian Bomb. 


Saudi Arabia's decision is also a loud warning that the Iranian nuclear stand-off is shifting into a most dangerous phase. The world can certainly expect more war-gaming and posturing on all sides as the weeks progress.


All Israel needs is a green light from the US to fly over Iraq toward Iran, and the fireworks can begin. What happens after that day could be scarier still for Israel. Russia and China both have enormous economic interests in Iran and anyone who damages their vital energy lifelines could face more than just a verbal lashing. This is a most grave consideration, one which Israel's leaders know all too well as they prepare to make the most fateful decision in the Jewish State's contentious history.

"Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach" - published today in the Windsor Star

Tomorrow marks the 66th anniversary of the Allies' D-Day invasion of Normandy, France, a day when over 14,000 Canadian soldiers landed at Juno Beach. Last week I had the opportunity to visit Juno Beach and write about the experience. My article on this visit was published today in the Windsor Star and can be read below. I hope you enjoy and take a moment to remember the sacrifices of Canada and all of the Allies on June 6, 1944.

-- Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enduring sacrifices at Juno Beach

BY ROBERT D. ONLEY, SPECIAL TO THE WINDSOR STAR

JUNE 5, 2010

Half-buried in the sand on the Courseulles-sur-mer shore in northern France, a rusting Nazi observation bunker crookedly overlooks the waters that Canadian soldiers braved on D-Day exactly 66 years ago tomorrow.

The history books tell us that the greatest military operation in human history saw some 155,000 Allied soldiers cross the English Channel to land at Normandy, including more than 14,000 young Canadians who would storm ashore on Juno Beach.

I have read many histories of June 6, watched the graphic scenes of the landings in Saving Private Ryan and played first-person shooter video games which simulate D-Day. Together these provided what I thought was a complete picture of the battles that day.

But it is not until I am actually standing here, on Juno Beach, that the true experiences of that day become conceivable. As clear ocean water retreats with the tide around my shoes, my thoughts immediately flash to the Canadian soldiers (most of them younger than me at 23), who took their first -- and in some cases, last -- fateful steps onto this very sand.

Standing here, looking up from the edge of the ocean on Juno Beach, I can see three weather-worn Nazi bunkers within deadly firing range of my position. Hunkered aboard the landing craft as they approached this exact location, Canadian soldiers most certainly saw these same bunkers and knew what horror was soon coming, or what was already on its way. To have exited the landing craft nonetheless, rushing ashore directly into enemy fire, speaks to the sheer bravery of those men.

The deadly obstacles and mines placed by the Nazis are long gone, but relics of the Nazi occupation remain. Enormous concrete bunkers strategically positioned along eight kilometres of the Juno sector are imposing reminders of what our soldiers faced that day. The seventy-five millimetre cannons that once sat atop some of the bunkers have been removed, but their bases persist as immovable emblems of the Nazi era in France.

Walking up the beach from the water, wet sand and seaweed stuck to my shoes, I first notice multiple bullet pockmarks on the Nazi observation bunker in front of me. Canadians fought back here. Canadian men unleashed their weaponry to survive on this very piece of earth. A large chunk of the concrete bunker is blown out below what was the slot for a German MG42 machine gun -- Canadian soldiers undoubtedly had a part in causing that destruction. Whatever exactly happened here at this bunker was incredibly violent and deadly. Time has not, and never can erase the evidence.

The farthest military advance of any the Allied forces on D-Day was achieved by the Canadians, fighting nearly 10 kilometres deep into Nazi-occupied territory. Yet prior to 2003, no museum in France existed to commemorate the Canadian soldiers' contributions. This changed with the opening of the Juno Beach Centre in the French commune of Courseulles-sur-mer, which Canadian and British troops liberated on June 6, 1944.

The Juno Beach Centre is the only Canadian Second World War museum in Normandy, and was developed in the late 1990s by a group of Canadian war veterans who felt that the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers during the liberation of Europe were not adequately represented in the Normandy region.

Paid for entirely with private donations, the Centre stands a mere 100 metres from one of the Nazi bunkers which once attempted to repel the Canadian liberators.

Some 369 Canadians lost their lives on this beach and in the countryside on D-Day, many not even making it to shore, ensnared by lethal German shoreline traps. June 6 alone saw over 1000 Canadian casualties. The Juno Beach Centre helps maintain the memory of that sacrifice.

While the national hostilities that made the D-Day invasion necessary have since disappeared under the unifying forces of the European Union, the unparalleled sacrifice of a generation of Canadian soldiers at Juno Beach can never be allowed to recede from the Canadian public conscience.

Both of my grandfathers flew in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War, both flew on D-Day, and both survived the war. Such a strong familial connection to the war and to D-Day is rare in 2010 and will only grow rarer, necessitating the education of those Canadians who know nothing of the sacrifice wrought during the Second World War.

Three times as many Canadian soldiers lost their lives on that single day in 1944, as have died fighting in Afghanistan over the past nine years. Mere minutes spent on Juno Beach illustrates what Canadians are prepared to sacrifice, whether it is liberating Europe, maintaining peacekeeping missions or helping secure a stable, peaceful Afghanistan. We are not a nation that quits when the battle gets bloody. Canadians soldiers, men and women, rise to the occasion, and win.

Therefore the challenge for Canadians in 2010 must be to ensure that the tremendous courage of that generation is an example engrained in the minds of today's youth and young adults. This includes those students of my generation whose perceptions of war have been distorted by the "unjust" war in Iraq and the ongoing debates over Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

This year saw the passing of Canada's last remaining veteran of the First World War. Thus as the remaining generational linkages to the Second World War start their decline in the coming decades, it is increasingly important that the lessons and history of the world's most violent conflict are taught to generations with no personal attachment to that war.

The selfless sacrifices of the men who fought at Juno Beach on D-Day and throughout the Second World War are a fundamental piece of Canada's identity, and must be preserved, understood and revered by all Canadians for generations to come.

Robert D. Onley is a law student at the University of Windsor and can be followed on his website at robertonley.com

© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

Understanding Israel's fears after flotilla fiasco

By: Robert D. Onley

PARIS, France -- Imagine living in a neighbourhood where every single one of your neighbours not only hates your guts, but literally wants to kill you. Think about that for a moment. Imagine venturing outside, only to have some of your neighbours' kids immediately throw rocks at you from both sides of your backyard.

And every time rocks are hurled indiscriminately your way, your neighbours' friends from near and afar cheer wildly in the streets, hoping for your imminent death. Now imagine this terrifying scenario practically every single day of your life, and you just may begin to understand how the government of Israel views the world.

Such an 'imaginary' scenario is actually the ruthless reality for Israel today in 2010. No matter what Israel does, good or bad, its neighbouring nations continue to hate her guts, and continue to call for her death. Some of Israel's neighbours' "kids", such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have indiscriminately launched rockets and missiles against Israel, in a blatant attempt to kill, maim and terrify the Jewish people. Yes, there has been calm in recent months, but only because Israel was forced to launch a defensive war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip after enduring months of random rocket attacks throughout 2008.

Israel's childish neighbours, always behaving badly and constantly needing harsh correction, are brazenly armed and funded by Israel's arch enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the helm of this authoritarian state are the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, two of the most ignorant and malicious national leaders on the planet which Israel unfortunately shares with them. Both men have called for Israel's "end" - a concerning declaration in all its vague, foreboding glory.

More disturbingly, both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad publicly and openly deny the Holocaust -- that is the slaughter of over 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany, and the greatest premeditated genocide in human history -- claiming that it never occurred, and proudly so.

Despite being arguably the most documented, analyzed and irrefutably proven massacres to ever occur, the leaders of Iran are still embraced by other international heads of state and are still welcomed as sane, respected --albeit Holocaust-denying-- members of humanity.

Meanwhile these very same evil men are flipping the bird to the international community by defiantly and blatantly assembling nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to carry them. At the same time, parades are held with enormous missiles draped in "Death to Israel" banners. Yet Israel is accused of warmongering and crying wolf the moment any Israeli official calls on the international community to take action against Iran.

Such an abject, ludicrous circumstance is not part of a plot to an action novel, nor is it a twisted neo-Nazi fantasy tale. No, quite to the contrary, this script is ripped from the pages of real life.

As this article is being written, Iran's uranium centrifuges continue to spin as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism reaches ever closer to producing the Persian Bomb.

Behind the scenes in southern Lebanon, SCUD missiles, most recently launched by Saddam's Iraq against Israel in 1991, are today being shipped to the terror group Hezbollah by Syria, one of Iran's now closest allies, and another mortal enemy of the Jewish State.

All of which makes Israel's most recent fiasco on the high seas -- involving the deaths of 9 Turkish "peace activists" onboard a "Peace Flotilla" bound for Gaza -- a mere distraction and blip on Israel's foreign policy radar. Sending commandos to drop-in from helicopters was certainly a jarring sight for governments around the world, who all promptly lined up like headless sheep to condemn Israel's actions (ie. no thinking before speaking).

But was what the Israeli government decided to do at sea really all that outlandish? The humanitarian aid ships were sent from the Republic of Turkey. Once an "ally" of Israel, now under the leadership of Recep Erdogan the Turkish government has steered itself east by openly aligning with none other than the apocalypse-inducing madmen reigning in Tehran.

It is therefore wholly unsurprising that the Israeli government was at the least suspicious of the contents of the Turkish "aid" vessels, moreso because the ship was packed and provided by the IHH, the Turkish "Human Rights and Freedom" group. With alleged extremist ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda, the Turkish IHH definitely was not considered by Israeli intelligence as merely a shipping company attempting to do something warm and fuzzy for the people of Gaza. In an area where smugglers manage to get brand new cars into the Gaza Strip through tunnels connected with Egypt, the Israeli government absolutely could not allow uninhibited access to Gaza for a massive vessel loaded up by the questionable figures in IHH.

Predictable then that as soon as Israeli commandos roped down onto the ship, they were mauled and violently beaten with batons and knives, some even before their boots could hit the deck. It seems the "peace activists" did not want the Israelis to find what "aid" lay inside.

Video released by the Israeli military (which is always careful to record its actions so as to provide the reflexively anti-Israel mainstream media with an objective account of what transpires), shows a raging mob of Turkish "peace activists" viciously attacking the Israeli soldiers, some of whom are clearly only "armed" with paintball guns.

The situation then rapidly spirals out of control after a pistol is torn from one of the soldiers and turned backed on the Israelis. Exactly what happened after that may or may not become clear in the coming days, but 9 of the most violent "peace activists" on earth are now dead.

The flash protests seen around the world in response to these "murders" are emblematic of the broader dilemma facing Israel today. In a world increasingly hostile to even the slightest twitch by the Jewish State, the Israeli government is forced to effectively make the worst possible decision every time a decision must be made.

This ingrained bias against Israel is partly the tragic consequence of our global internet-based news system which can (and often does) disseminate the same false or misinformation around the world in split-seconds via the internet.

Before a story can even be fully understood and accurately accounted, literally hundreds of millions of people have been updated through mobile news alerts, SMS, Twitter and Facebook. Soon the headline "Israeli commandos storm peace ship: 9 innocent activists dead" is all that a generation of skim-reading-know-nothing-protesters need to see. For them, their favourite target, Israel, is back in their crosshairs once again.

Last night while I was walking down the Champs-Elysées in Paris, a hoard of pro-Palestinian "peace activists" seemingly out of nowhere began screaming and chanting slogans in French, English and Arabic, ever so peacefully calling for "Death to Israel". Like a marauding gang, they marched down into the Metro station beneath some of the ritziest stores on earth.

Their chants grew more intense as non-protesters, including myself, began to grow uncomfortable at the tangible anger that was filling the Metro stop. After nearly 5 minutes of continuous chanting, I decided it was time to exit the stop before anything went south. More importantly, it was clear that the Metro trains were not arriving.

After reaching the exit, I realized why: hundreds of riot police were assembling in the surrounding area, as van-loads of fresh troops were being ferried in, sirens wailing, as traffic was redirected away from this section of the Champs-Elysées.

It was then that I realized just how deathly serious Israel's foreign policy predicament is today. With nearly-rioting French Arab youth on the busiest, prettiest street in Paris, Israel's international image problems are not isolated to its local Middle Eastern neighbours, who are well-known to hate Israel regardless of the crisis-du-jour.

Rather, the glaring problem for Israel is the burgeoning populations of anti-Israeli citizens in all the major capitals around the world. In a decade or so's time, some of the crazed protesters from the Parisian Metro stop may be sitting in France's National Assembly. Same too in governments around the world, whether in the British or Canadian Parliaments or German Bundestag.

While today's European governments often make toothless gestures of opposition to Israeli foreign policy to appease their populace, it is their future governments -- filled with potentially anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist activists -- who will be calling for international intervention to solve the conflict in the Middle-East once and for all, whether Israel likes it or not. Perhaps an international military intervention to bring Israel to "justice" will be the EU's first major military foray in the Middle East?

Maybe then, if he's still kicking around, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will see the day when Israel ceases to exist. That's if he doesn't nuke Israel first.

It's only been 66 years since the Holocaust, and the world is ready to wipe Israel off the map.

Robert D. Onley