Roughly speaking, people have one of four positions regarding the activity of killing people in the name of some communal interest (as against personal vendettas and so on). There are those who regard killing as a fine thing (Nazis, early Communists in may countries where Communism took over whenever that was, Islamists). There are those who are indifferent: they don't see killing as an imperative, but nor do they see any problem. There are many of these. Then you have the people who think killing is bad, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. I'm of this camp, as are many of the people in the democracies, altho their numbers are being eroded in favour of the fourth group, those who regard killing as always wrong, period.
There are gradations within each group, obviously. I'm using a very broad brush, so you don't need to quibble with me.
Any reasonable person would agree the world would be a better place if everyone belonged to the fourth group. The problem - and it's a very serious moral problem - is that until the first two groups empty out, adhering to the fourth group means being complicit in the killings. Try as they may, the fourth groupers have no answer to this; most of the time they merely bury their head in the slime while preaching that the first two groups don't exist, they are merely third groupers who have been so severely wronged that they can't be blamed, only the rest of us can be.
Sermons from people with their mouths full of slime are not pleasant.
None of this is new, nor particularly original. It did however occur to me, earlier today while reading this, that one might add a significant comment to the discussion. For those of you who are Hebraically-challenged, it's a short report from yesterday's funeral of Sergeant Eran Dan-Gur, killed the day before in Gaza. His mother, in her grief, said that his death had been in vain, since "If it could have stopped the rockets, she would have accepted it, but it didn't stop them".
Now look at the sentence again: Sometimes, says a grieving mother, you have to be willing to lay down your life. Protecting your fellow citizens from death, for example, is such a case.
An extraordinarily strong statement, don't you think? Makes one wonder if the preachers of total non-killing would be willing to lay down their lives for anything, or perhaps more important, for anyone.