It is clear that the EBT overwhelmingly don’t allow any justification of violence or hatred. The clearest expression of it for me has been the ‘simile of the saw’ in MN 21. There are countless other instances, e.g. every time greed, hatred and ignorance being described as the primary unwholesome roots etc. etc.
So the ETB are not to blame when violence has been justified in the name of ‘Buddhism’. Yet, it challenges us to develop an explicit position towards the history (and present) of Buddhism & violence.
My personal position is that the Buddha’s teaching addresses the spiritual practitioner and has validity only in this field and neither claims nor exemplifies to be applied to society as a whole or politics - in fact quite the opposite when we think of right speech. So when I think or talk about politics and social justice I am careful not to do it as a Buddhist and not to mix those two contexts.
What I am encouraged to do as a Buddhist is to face the facts, i.e. that in the name of or with the acceptance of Buddhist institutions people were and still are violent, be it in Japan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka or Thailand. The article “Brian Daizen Victoria - Violence-enabling Mechanisms in Buddhism”, along with its bibliography is one step and reminder in that direction. Even though it focuses on the 20th century there are also older examples of institutional consent of violence. (Another source is Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer: Buddhist Warfare).
One aspect that is present in the EBT is the “passive-aggressive karma-retribution belief” where in many instances we are told that because of certain acts people have to suffer in the after-life / next life. That is consistent with conditionality and that each kamma has its fruit, but I still squirm when I read MN 135: When a killer is reborn his life will be short, angry people will be ugly, who doesn’t give to monks will be poor etc. That teaching is in itself insulting to the complexity of kamma and also opens the door wide to think “Look at this ugly person, s/he must have been very angry in the past life”. MN 136 is already weakening this oversimplicity. But I remember reading a sutta (does anyone have the source?) where the Buddha says that we shouldn’t bother trying to figure out the workings of kamma, and that it’s too complex.