In every occupied country, there are the occupied, the occupiers, and
somewhere in between, the collaborators. The latter, for reasons of
their own, "work the system" to their own ends. Often ruthlessly.
Often in the guise of doing good things for their people, when in
fact they're just doing the best thing for themselves.

Then there are the occupied who 'go along with the crowd' in order not
to stand out, afraid, as it were, to question authority lest the
authorities question them. They all too often find themselves on the
wrong ethical side of a situation. And...they often make convenient
pawns when the powers-that-be need a loud, angry, mob of "protesters"
to come out and declare blasphemy and generally make the establishment
afraid that civil disorder will soon erupt.

Much evidence points to such being the case in Judea, some two
millennia ago.

It wasn't a uniquely Jewish/Roman problem; we have ample examples over
the last several centuries that point to the same thing taking place.

Maybe that's one of the things that make empires intrinsically evil
and military occupations distasteful.

Similarly, in *every* organized religion we see people who rise to
the heights of organizational power for reasons which are, to one
degree or another, self-serving and cynical. These people do some
horrible things, things in direct conflict with the ideals of their
religion, in order to retain power. And THAT is not a uniquely Jewish
problem, nor is Judaism immune to the problem. They likely didn't
invent it, either.

And we know, from historical experience, that vesting religious and
civil power in the same place has always been a recipe for trouble.

In any case, troublemakers like Jesus of Nazareth tend to get caught
up in such situations, especially when the politics of hostile
occupation meet the vested interests of puppet governments and
civil and religious authority converge.

There were a lot of places in the ancient--- and modern--- world
where a character like Jesus of Nazareth would have met some sort of
bad end at the hands of authorities who disagreed on much but would
agree that people like him threatened their position and standing.

If you understand that, you then understand that "the Jews killed
Jesus" misses the bigger point--- that the nature of evil lies not
in some imaginary "devil" but rather in the really rotten things
men will do in order to hold on to whatever little snippet of
power and prestige they come upon. The nature of man, sadly, is to
turn on its own when threatened.

If Jesus had been a Roman, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a
Buddhist or a Hindu at the wrong or similar time and place, it is
likely that his own people would have killed him. That he was a
Jew, from that perspective, was just an accidental detail.

And to me, that just disarms the whole question.




his own people