who/what I am are my own, not something you can define, and they always have and always will necessitate action in ways that you do not, nor will ever, know, so your zero sum assessment of that is evidence of your own somewhat aggressive, not so peaceful, ground. The difference between us is that I admit that and you don't.
"It essentially translates to ..." YOU. What follows is an fundamentally hierarchical and, ergo, power-based authoritarian position that you are trying to sell as somekind of universal understanding of anyone in my position . . . without even beginning with a question to an individual in order to rationally validate whether you are even remotely correct, or perhaps, just perhaps, WRONG.
BTW, you should disregard all Buddhism, since it's roots are found in the Bhagavad Gita, which is quite clear on the issue at question here, in Krishna's discussion with Arjuna before the great fratricidal war on the plains of Kuruksetra. You see, Buddhists are honest about what is happening, thus, they recognize that not everyone is so enlightened as to be outside of the struggle, not even you as your absolutist authoritarian driven reply so clearly demonstrates, TTE, "There is ONE truth about peace and that is MadHound's."
There is no right to self-determination, unless everyone, right or wrong, has that same right. Were it otherwise, we'd not be talking about rights, but privilege instead, a privilege that you apparently claim against all who disagree with your "essential" translation.