The word "pacifist" is one of those words that everyone uses but no one really knows what it means.

If a "pacifist" is simply a person who prefers, ceteris paribus, the absence of war to the presence of war, then most of us are "pacifists."

If, however, a "pacifist" is someone who believes that the threat or use of force is NEVER JUSTIFIED, under even the most compelling circumstances, even when the threat or use of force could certainly save innocent lives and prevent grave injustice against the most vulnerable, then I think there are very few "pacifists" in the world--or at least, I hope there are.

Would anyone who claims to be such a "pacifist" truly stand motionless while someone killed their own children right in front of them?  If not, then it is not, it seems to me, a question of the threat or use of force vs. the renunciation of force, as 99.9% of human beings would threaten or use force--even deadly force--to protect their own children from grave harm.  Thus, it is not some higher principle as to the use of force, but only a question of whose ox is being gored (or rather, whose family is being killed).  I can appreciate the cost-benefit analysis underlying that way of thinking, but it seems to me to be pragmatism parading as principle--i.e., I would kill to save my own family, but will condemn anyone else who would do the same.

Given this, what does it really mean to be a "pacifist"?

If you lived in Sderot, and your home and family was on the receiving end of daily rocket attacks and shelling from Gaza, would that change your opinion, or would you ask your family to grin and bear it?  Perhaps you would move to new place, and cede Sderot to Hamas?  What would you do when Hamas began launching rockets from Sderot toward your new home?  Would you just move again?