Should Have

Perhaps, somewhere between 27 and 60 Lebanese men, women, and children were killed Israeli fire at Qana. To quote the New York times of July 30, 2006, the Israelis "said that residents had been warned to leave and should have already been gone."

So what does, "should have been gone" mean? Does it mean that they were gone? In which case, why are there dead people there? Perhaps it means that they were not gone? In that case, why was the area bombed? Did the Israelis intend to kill civilians?

In plain everyday language, "should have" is used to assign responsibility. Thus, "you should have come to a full stop at the red light; instead, you continued on through the intersection. You are therefore guilty of having run a red light." Are we saying here, then, that because we "should have" done something, any negative consequences are our fault?

The civilians "should have" left. But aren't those civilians equally justified in saying that the Israeli "should have" verified for themselves that no civilians were in the houses before they bombed them?

The dead should not have died.