user2495: In Buddhism can there be found any justification (whatever the perceived provocation) for war and military violence?

user760: Yes, there is justification for war in Buddhism, at least in Zen. A quote from D.T. Suzuki, who is sometimes considered the founder of modern Zen:

if a lawless country comes and obstructs our commerce, or tramples on our
  rights, this is something that would truly interrupt the progress of all
  humanity. In the name of religion our country could not submit to
  this. Thus, we would have no choice but to take up arms, not for the
  purpose of slaying the enemy, nor for the purpose of pillaging cities, let alone for the purpose of acquiring wealth. Instead, we would simply punish the people of the country representing injustice in order that justice might prevail. How is it possible that we could seek anything for ourselves? In any event, this is what is called
  religious conduct.

This quote approves of war under some circumstances. This is acknowledged even in an article by Kemmyō Taira Satō, who is clearly sympathetic to Suzuki.

user471: I'm quoting from my other answer to support this.
Protection of arahats (DN 16):

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."
  - DN 16

I'm not sure whether Buddha, The Gospel (Paul Carus, 1894) is based on canonical texts:

Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by
  the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata
  who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers,
  permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata
  declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes,
  our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach
  the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the
  evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who
  threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata
  maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a
  righteous cause should be forbidden?"
The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and
  he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he
  teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and
  kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must
  be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury
  not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evildoing.
  His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the
  law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in
  his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that
  this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that
  the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate
  but rejoice at it."
The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in
  which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not
  teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having
  exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy. He must
  be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete
  surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to
  those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of
  nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind.
  But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the
  interest of self against truth and righteousness.
  - Buddha, The Gospel 52


user4742: As far as I know there are no instances in the Suttas where violence is justified. 
We are informed of the consequences of violence, how it prolongs samsara and suffering of oneself and others. We are told to fear even the slightest akusala (wrong deed).
Yet those of us still under the sway of desire, will justify violence. Even here in Sri Lanka some Buddhist monks advocate violence and war during the time of the LTTE and more recently against the Muslim community. Their primary argument is that they are doing it to preserve Buddhism for future generations. An argument rejected by the Buddha. 

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html


user157: There are places in the older texts that one can find passages advocating violence. For example the Tibetan Kalachakra Tantra has got anti-Islamic passages in it which can be used as a justification for violence

The Chakravartin shall come out at the end of the age, from the city
  the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in
  battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the
  earth.

More recently Japanese Zen was connected with militarism and violence in the Second World war. There is a book Zen at War which gives an extensive study. There is a famous quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku justifying violence from a Buddhist perspective (source:  Zen at War)

march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation
  of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of
  which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war

Of course you don't need to look in the past at all to find examples of Buddhist justifying violence. There is violence today being advocated and committed by Buddhists against Muslim minorities in Burma. 
Even though it seems incredible, considering the first precept and the radical non-violence propounded by texts such as The Parable of the Saw, Buddhists can an do justify the use of violence. I guess ultimately Buddhism is a human institution (albeit pointing to timeless wisdom) and like all human institutions it can and does have flaws and sometimes very grave flaws.

user111: In the Theravada tradition, there's no justification for killing. But justification is a personal thing. Buddhism tells you about the consequences of an action. Not whether it is justified or not. Killing intentionally is always bad Karma, whether you, the society, a religious community, a religious book, judges of courts, a god, inner voice, patriotism, honor etc. justify it or not.
But one highlighting factor is that if you kill virtuous beings, you get a lot of bad karma, whereas killing an immoral being will result in comparatively less bad karma. 
A person who is trying to kill you is already an immoral being. And you may think of a justifiable reason to kill him. But killing him is still bad Karma which can cause much suffering to you in the future as well as corrupting your present mind state.
Karma is a law of nature. It is not a god who punishes you depending on how justified your reasons are for doing something.
ex: Think of a newborn baby touching fire. Having no knowledge of fire, is it fair for it to get burnt? Is it justified? Probably not! But why does it still get burnt? Because fire doesn't judge. It's simply a process of causes and effect. So is Kamma.

2495: <p>In Buddhism can there be found any justification (whatever the perceived provocation) for war and military violence?</p>
 760: <p>Yes, there is justification for war in Buddhism, at least in Zen. A quote from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">D.T. Suzuki</a>, who is sometimes considered <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3061/modern-vs-traditional-zen">the founder of modern Zen</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>if a lawless country comes and obstructs our commerce, or tramples on our
  rights, this is something that would truly interrupt the progress of all
  humanity. In the name of religion our country could not submit to
  this. Thus, we would have no choice but to take up arms, not for the
  purpose of slaying the enemy, nor for the purpose of pillaging cities, let alone for the purpose of acquiring wealth. Instead, we would simply punish the people of the country representing injustice in order that justice might prevail. How is it possible that we could seek anything for ourselves? In any event, this is what is called
  religious conduct.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This quote approves of war under some circumstances. This is acknowledged even in an <a href="http://web.otani.ac.jp/EBS/DT%20Suzuki%20and%20the%20Question%20of%20War.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article by Kemmyō Taira Satō</a>, who is clearly sympathetic to Suzuki.</p>
 471: <p>I'm quoting from <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7767/471">my other answer</a> to support this.</p>

<p>Protection of arahats (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"</p>
  
  <p>"I have heard, Lord, that they do."</p>
  
  <p>"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."
  - <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure whether <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg52.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha, The Gospel</a> (Paul Carus, 1894) is based on canonical texts:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by
  the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata
  who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers,
  permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata
  declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes,
  our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach
  the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the
  evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who
  threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata
  maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a
  righteous cause should be forbidden?"</p>
  
  <p>The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and
  he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he
  teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and
  kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must
  be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury
  not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evildoing.
  His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the
  law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in
  his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that
  this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that
  the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate
  but rejoice at it."</p>
  
  <p>The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in
  which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, <strong><em>but he does not
  teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having
  exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy</em></strong>. He must
  be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete
  surrender of self, <strong><em>but he does not teach a surrender of anything to
  those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of
  nature</em></strong>. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind.
  But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the
  interest of self against truth and righteousness.
  - <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg52.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha, The Gospel 52</a></p>
</blockquote>
 4742: <p>As far as I know there are no instances in the Suttas where violence is justified. </p>

<p>We are informed of the consequences of violence, how it prolongs samsara and suffering of oneself and others. We are told to fear even the slightest akusala (wrong deed).</p>

<p>Yet those of us still under the sway of desire, will justify violence. Even here in Sri Lanka some Buddhist monks advocate violence and war during the time of the LTTE and more recently against the Muslim community. Their primary argument is that they are doing it to preserve Buddhism for future generations. An argument rejected by the Buddha. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
  <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
 157: <p>There are places in the older texts that one can find passages advocating violence. For example the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra#Prophesies_on_Holy_War">Tibetan Kalachakra Tantra</a> has got anti-Islamic passages in it which can be used as a justification for violence</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Chakravartin shall come out at the end of the age, from the city
  the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in
  battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the
  earth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>More recently Japanese Zen was connected with militarism and violence in the Second World war. There is a book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War">Zen at War</a> which gives an extensive study. There is a famous quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku justifying violence from a Buddhist perspective (source:  Zen at War)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation
  of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of
  which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course you don't need to look in the past at all to find examples of Buddhist justifying violence. There is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306">violence today being advocated and committed</a> by Buddhists against Muslim minorities in Burma. </p>

<p>Even though it seems incredible, considering the first precept and the radical non-violence propounded by texts such as <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html">The Parable of the Saw</a>, Buddhists can an do justify the use of violence. I guess ultimately Buddhism is a human institution (albeit pointing to timeless wisdom) and like all human institutions it can and does have flaws and sometimes very grave flaws.</p>
 111: <p>In the Theravada tradition, there's no justification for killing. But justification is a personal thing. Buddhism tells you about the consequences of an action. Not whether it is justified or not. Killing intentionally is always bad Karma, whether you, the society, a religious community, a religious book, judges of courts, a god, inner voice, patriotism, honor etc. justify it or not.</p>

<p>But one highlighting factor is that if you kill virtuous beings, you get a lot of bad karma, whereas killing an immoral being will result in <strong>comparatively</strong> less bad karma. 
A person who is trying to kill you is already an immoral being. And you may think of a justifiable reason to kill him. But killing him is still bad Karma which can cause much suffering to you in the future as well as corrupting your present mind state.</p>

<p>Karma is a law of nature. It is not a god who punishes you depending on how justified your reasons are for doing something.
ex: Think of a newborn baby touching fire. Having no knowledge of fire, is it fair for it to get burnt? Is it justified? Probably not! But why does it still get burnt? Because fire doesn't judge. It's simply a process of causes and effect. So is Kamma.</p>
