Any of those would have been sufficient to ensure I wouldn't work for them for any amount of money, and I'd quit if I found out about them after I was employed.
Honestly, that's blood money.
Using your logic, the murdered journalist took blood money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
If you work for pretty much any major company in the world, you are receiving "blood money". If you are working for the US government or any major government, you are receiving "blood money".
Can you point me to a company that is "without sin"?
2. Not many people would conflate working for washington post and helping to kill civilians in the middle east. But perhaps if shown enough evidence they would maybe do so and act accordingly. So knowledge, like the knowledge in this article, enabled the OP to make an ethical decision.
3. Your comment doesn't help anyone. Because you have discounted degrees of harm ("any major company in the world", "any government") and this then undermined the small bit of knowledge imparted (the WP link). The nett effect is a call to inaction.
Is it ethically acceptable to join a weapon manufacturer? A drug cartel? The SS?
You always have to draw a line somewhere.
Lockheed because it is primarily a military contractor.
Boeing because one half is military contractor and the other half is cost cutting at the cost of lives.