When we discuss the religious that spun off Judaism, we attribute their malicious and unanimously condemned artifacts like Crusades and Jihad to the fact that they "altered the sacred tradition" or misunderstood it or disregarded our extensive Oral Tradition.
However, looking at our sources it appears that since Matan Torah Judaism in big wasn't so different, as our sources describe the way our people conquer, destroy, exterminate or subjugate other nations, whenever we could (with G-d's help, of course).
Here's an excerpt from the Wiki article on "Judaism_and_violence":
Forced conversions occurred under the Hasmonean kingdom (circa 150BC). The Idumeans were forced to convert to Judaism, either by threats of exile, or threats of death, depending on the source.
In Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism Harold W. Attridge claims that “there is a reason to think that Josephus’ account of their conversion is substantially accurate.... these were not isolated instances but that forced conversion was a national policy is clear from the fact that Alexander Jannaeus (ca 80 BCE) demolished the city of Pella in Moab, 'because the inhabitants would not agree to adopt the national custom of the Jews.'" Josephus, Antiquities. 13.15.4.
We practiced the death penalty as prescribed in the Torah and allowed the Beis Din authority to kill "unlawfully" (עונשים שלא מן הדין).
With time, the Israeli kingdoms and authorities were destroyed and we lived in exile (under other nations' control) for the last 2500 years, eventually becoming a very nonviolent and peaceful religion, minimizing and eventually canceling the death penalty and corporal punishment, forgetting the idea of cleansing the Holy Land or conquering others.
My question is, imagine the first Temple wasn't destroyed ever and a strong Israeli kingdom would continue to flourish, what in our original tradition is intrinsically benevolent that would prevent Judaism from developing into violent fanatism aiming at subjugating the rest of humanity and getting rid of infidels?
This is not a comparative religion question, this Q. is speculative, about possible ways of development of our tradition.