well, first of all, nobody blames the jews. when the jews are to be blamed, we blame ze jews.
i'm talking about colonialism, very explicitly, and in the context of this discussion, the jews really don't count. gentillism notwithstanding, and perhaps i am wrong, but i am not aware of a single example of a jewish state ever trying to conquer, convert or colonize anybody. the jews have needed to defend themselves throughout history, but israel never tried to conquer egypt or syria or arabia. there might have been a jewish kingdom north of the caucasus in the middle ages, but the stories told about it are dubious and it's existence is difficult to even prove at all. this would have been a majority turkish state, if it did exist. the story is that they adopted judaism to counter the christian russians to their north and the muslim arabs to their south, so they didn't have to be absorbed by either, and could play them off against each other. there's perhaps a warning embedded in this that judaism could be a colonizing or imperial force, but the fact is that there is no actual clear example of that happening anywhere on the planet and anywhere in history.
except joshua. i guess. but they were joshing about joshua. that never actually happened.
if you look closely behind the scenes, there's often some sneaky jewish oligarch making plans for aristocrats and generals. i have to give you that. however, that wasn't what the spread of christianity was really about. you can't blame christianity on the jews; it would be more accurate to blame it on the greeks, anyways.
it's hard to get your head into the mindset of the political, social, religious and military leaders around the collapse of a decaying empire, and what they might have imagined the outcome of forcing this religion on everybody might have been, but the writing they have left behind (the bit that was vandalized and rewritten repeatedly rather than just burned and forgotten) tells us they were trying to build a common culture to unify the empire. this is understandable, on some level. american culture, from cherry pies to hamburgers and rock and roll, is a pretty real unifying force across the pond, from the beatles' days in hamburg to the british invasion and beyond. we think we have a common culture, and we do, but it's not about a shared appreciation of shakespeare or voltaire, it's about the gramscian conditioning of american beliefs on the conquered peoples, and we've got this figured out way better than the romans ever did. the romans inherited pan-hellenism, and that worked in the east (it is the real culprit behind christianity), but the west was half carthaginian and half celtic and slowly being conquered by germans and there was no history of a unified culture or even a cohesive civilization in these regions, who had been dealing with greek and lebanese traders and settlers on their land for centuries and clearly didn't like it. something that happened repeatedly during the same period that christianity developed in egypt, syria and greece was that the gaulic west (britain, france, spain) tried to split away from rome and form an independent celtic empire. this independent celtic empire was roman and latin, to be clear, but it held to it's own customs, it held to it's own religion and it may have held to dialects of gallic, while not wanting to be completely cut off from the roman world (and it never had been. the primary source of tin in the west had been britain for hundreds of years previously. the city of marseilles was founded by greeks; barcelona was founded by lebanese. we don't know how far out to sea the egyptians or carthaginians made it. these regions were integrated into the trade networks, going back centuries.). so, the empire was falling apart and the social engineers wanted to find a way to extend panhellenism to the west of the empire to keep it together. you can't blame them for wanting to do that, but you can blame them for showing up with swords and ordering people around; that, however, was a pretty roman thing to do and not much of a jewish thing or much of a greek thing to do at all. the romans liked showing up with swords and ordering people around. the spread of christianity was just one of the many ways they did that, in the end.
so, i don't blame ze jews for christianity and i don't think christianity is even really that jewish. christianity is fundamentally platonic. islam breaks with christianity in being more about aristotle than plato, which is one of the reasons islam is so much worse than christianity.
the weird thing about ze jews is that they were basically indo-europeans anyways. judaism takes it's basic themes from zoroastrianism and is essentially a sky god religion, in the indo-european tradition. there is nothing much like yahweh in traditional semitic religion; yahweh is really more like thor or zeus. we know that existing judaism was reformed in the hellenic period to align with platonism itself, and we know it was heavily influenced by zoroastrianism on it's way out of captivity. the extent to which it may have mingled with greek invaders in the bronze age collapse is itself unclear. the stories that do have clearly semitic connections (like the flood) are general myths from the region and seem distanced from their origin by several layers. in a lot of ways, judaism is closer to greek or roman paganism than christianity is, and should seem less problematic to a pagan than christianity would.
but this is all very abstract.
the basic historical fact is that jews just don't conquer or colonize. they just don't. that's an islamo-christian thing.