The ideal pacifist position, that is, "violence is morally repugnant, and should not be used in any circumstances, even to defend one's own life" is one that I have great respect for. Unfortunately, it also means that whoever uses it is an easy target for any aggressor. The problem is that aggressors are more likely to arise spontaneously than not, which means that to be an ideal pacifist leads one to a life of eternal wandering and death, either running away from aggressors, waiting until they kill you, or living in the hope that society as a whole will protect you. That was the way of the Jews for a long, long while. It was not a pleasant life. Oh, one could probably have a century or two of quiet, but then the royals will find that there is general disquiet in the people, and to avoid the danger of being replaced, they will find a scape-goat. And why not choose a group that is non-violent at that, to be used as the people's punch-bag? And then, a Jewish group either dwindeled in numbers, or moved away, or both.

I, for one, would rather allow violence as a valid tool for social interactions, and instead choose to focus on controlling violence, and making sure it is not abused, or used unjustly. I do not wish, at the moment, to take the ideal pasifistic position, and become a Wandering Jew.