There's no question that Krav Maga is effective, but whether or not it teaches you to solve conflicts non-violently depends very much on the teacher. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And if all you know is how to knock your opponent out, that's probably what you'll attempt to do in a conflict.
It should be stated that it there are PLENTY of questions about the effectiveness of Krav Maga. Any martial art that cannot be trained at high intensity against a resisting opponent should be looked upon with a healthy amount of skepticism.
I studied Krav Maga and it taught me nothing like that ... I had to quit it because it was having a detrimental effect on how I was approaching real life conflict ...
This might differ between countries and schools. I practised it for several years, and we had many classes that involved techniques useful for avoiding conflict (some as simple as just running away), keeping people at distance, and so on.
Well, yeah that was the fundamental principle alright. This even, isn't always the best approach in day-to-day life ... but even then once you go beyond that it's "smash their face til it's bloody". It's the space between this, and the nuance that Aikido explores that I found very beneficial.
Just like aikido, the teaching of other arts also varies... and yet those who like to badmouth us at every opportunity will assume the worst aikido school in the world is exactly representative of all of us.
And there is some utter nonsense out there, definitely. But we're hardly unique in that.
(a) Then how should Sun Tzu have entitled his famous work, if not "The Art of War"?
(b) Krav Maga is clearly a highly time- and energy-efficient tool for hand-to-hand combat; why should any martial art strive for any different metrics? (other than coping with exceptional circumstances via malicious compliance, such as that old French martial-art that focuses entirely on kicks not fists)