If anything, war makes a much more challenging case for this view, unless you accept a position of total pacifism
If that is the definition we're working with, it precludes "justifiable" exceptions, because there are no exceptions allowed. You'd need to equate passively allowing someone to kill another life with actively killing to preserve a life, which is another entire debate before we can begin to take that as a premise.
If that is not the definition, then why should we bother saying something like "life is hallowed"? What could it mean that would have any consequence for, or add any further meaning to the debate? "Life is meaningful."? "Life is to be respected."?
This is the complexity inherent to engaging in dialectics, and in my opinion words like "hallowed" should simply be avoided unless they're rigorously defined by all parties.
Is that is indeed the definition, #1 and #3 are directly incompatible. This is the problem with using words like "hallowed" in philosophical debates. One person uses a word without defining it, and they intend it one way. Then the other party argues with their imperfect and improvised understanding of the word's definition, and no one gets anywhere. This is how we end up with six people debating whether or not "the good always matches the beautiful", and it's one of the reasons philosophy as a discipline has a bad reputation to outsiders.
If you dig deep enough, what will often happen is one or more parties will try to create an empirical definition and the other parties will just use circular definitions until it's clear they're not saying anything at all.
If "hallowed" doesn't mean "must always be preserved", I'm not sure it can mean anything of consequence to the debate. You could define it as "must be preserved unless there is a justifiable reason not to", but then you're not saying anything new. It's redundant.