yossicl, on Oct 22 2011, 08:12 PM, said:
With Israel agreeing to exchange for Gilad Shalit’s release 1,077 prisoners, most of whom are Hamas members and many who have killed Israelis in the past, this passage takes on new meaning. This is a battle of worlds destroyed and worlds saved. Israel has clearly decided that to save one Israeli life is worth the release of 1,077 who may kill again.
One Israeli life for 1,077 Palestinian ones. This certainly makes one think about how the two sides view the sanctity of life. Israel was willing to pay an extremely high price to free one of its own. Hamas refused to release Shalit until Israel agreed to release 1,077.
It reflects the value Israel and the Jewish people attach to the sanctity of life and the commitment of Israel to those who stand in defense of the country...
If you want to make claims about valuing "the sanctity of life", this is not an example.
Any government values the life of its citizens more than those of a different state that they are essentially at war with. That is part of the purpose of any decent government. This does not represent a belief in "the sanctity of life". Israel has many thousands of Palestinians in jail even after the swap, the Palestinians had the one soldier. It was always going to be lopsided.
Israel has no problem killing bystanders in attacks on terrorist leaders. They do try to minimize the casualties, which is to their credit, but Israel is also answerable to western public opinion in a way the Palestinians are not. Western countries including the US wouldn't support Israel if they simply slaughtered civilians indiscriminately. Though, the right wing extremist factions in Israel would quite happily slaughter Palestinians if they had their way.
Violence begets violence unfortunately.