http://gty.im/175779076 The release of the Israeli report into last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, as well as the impending release of the U.N. Human Rights Council’s report, once again shifts our focus to the issue of warfare ethics.

The U.S. has blatantly accused Israel of firing on UNRWA schools in the Gaza Strip, even after the U.N. has conceded those locations were used as weapon caches, and at times as firing sites.

The Americans are currently unable to strike Islamic State group hubs in Syria and Iraq, knowing this jihadi group uses civilians as human shields against the West’s attacks.

During the Gaza campaign, the Israel Defense Forces avoided striking targets when this would have resulted in serious collateral damage, which at times caused graver harm to Israeli soldiers and prevented the IDF from dealing harsher blows to Hamas.

The introduction of extremely violent elements to the region, which may end up using unconventional, “dirty” weapons, may see Israel face a far more difficult dilemma: Should it strike targets knowing significant collateral damage is all but inevitable, or should it try to withstand unconventional attacks?

Knowing the innate bias tainting the world’s view of Israel, we cannot count on the international community’s willingness to abide Israeli strikes on military targets nestled in the midst of civilian populations.

Examples of that can be seen in the absence of any kind of international demand for an inquest into U.S. strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which targeted 41 terrorists and ended up killing over 1,000 civilians. The same goes for the strikes mounted by Saudi Arabia and its allies against the rebels in Yemen, which have placed thousands of civilians in harm’s way but have failed to rattle the global community.

The existing rules of war pertain to warring nations and fail to provide for today’s reality. Therefore, the first step should be revising this doctrine to include guidelines for cases in which nations battle non-nation entities.

One necessary amendment, for example, should focus on the need to legitimize targeting terrorists who use residential areas as cover when firing rockets at a neighboring country’s cities, especially if there is reasonable concern that unconventional weapons are used — and despite the fact that such strikes may harm innocent people.

Another necessary amendment is legitimizing the use of nonlethal measures to evacuate civilians prior to targeting enemy agents. This will prevent terrorists from using local residents as human shields and facilitate undermining the enemy.

Western nations that are already affected by the rise of al-Qaida and Islamic State may support such initiatives, which would require analysis by prominent experts and careful diplomatic maneuvering.

Another measure could be developing surgical strike weapons able to “super-pinpoint” enemy targets while minimizing any collateral damage.

In any case, we cannot leave the initiative in the hands of a ruthless enemy, which sees Jewish soldiers and civilians alike as a target that must be destroyed.

Dr. Ephraim Herrera is the author of “Jihad — Fundamentals and Fundamentalism.”

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12871