"Lauder’s four thousand years should thus read two thousand years."
Even that is ridiculous. For most of that time Judaism had no effect on the Americas, East Asia, India, and sub-Saharan Africa*, let alone those parts of the world where the chief moral question was which of your relatives to eat first.
And that is the majority of the world. The Shakya clan and the State of Lu (魯) have had more influence on the morality of the world than Judaism.
"there is little question that Judaism was the primary inspiration for Jesus of Nazareth"
I suspect you might be as ignorant of Christianity as I am of Judaism. It is by no means certain that Jesus existed, let alone what he taught. The figure that is portrayed in the Gospels seem equivocal about Jewish Law.
"the content of the Hebrew Bible became the gold standard"
No, it didn't. The content of the New Testament became the standard. In the NT, it is made clear that Judaism has been superseded. Christians found that the NT provided insufficient moral guidance, and turned to Stoic Natural Law ethics, and then attempted to find religious justifications in the texts.
So, for that small part of the world where Christianity held sway, there was a Jewish influence, but the suggestion that people turned to the Jews for moral guidance is absurd.
I am of the opinion that Islam is a greater transmitter of Jewish influence, but similar caveats apply there, too.
This idea of the world's morality emanating from some sort of Jewish Wakanda is simply arrogant, ignorant, boasting.
(*If Bishop Colenso is to be believed, the response of the Zulus to the Old Testament was (a) shock at the immoral behaviour of the Ancient Jews, and (b) ridicule of the Biblical claims of Jewish military prowess. The Zulus knew from experience what could, and what couldn't, be done with spear and shield. The process of translating the OT into Zulu, and discussing it with the Zulus, led Colenso to some radical criticism of the OT, for which he was later excommunicated.)
"Israelis are local people living in their own country"
I'm inclined to agree, with the proviso that it is not exclusively their own country.
"Let’s add to this intellectual exercise that these local people have legitimate interests and concerns,"
I'll agree to that, without, at this stage, agreeing that all their interests and concerns are legitimate.
"and they believe that their cause is just."
There's the rub. Insofar as that belief encompasses the "Jewish State" idea, the basic concepts of Zionism, they are wrong.
The task, then, is to either change their belief or find a way of bringing about the one state regardless of that belief.
I don't know how either of these can be accomplished, but failure to do so will perpetuate or exacerbate the current, totally immoral, situation.
Perhaps you could offer some positive suggestions.