“To talk of the Jews always as the oppressed and never as the oppressors is simply absurd; it is as if men pleaded for reasonable help for exiled French aristocrats or ruined Irish landlords, and forgot that the French and Irish peasants had any wrongs at all.” — G. K. Chesterton, The New Jerusalem
Justice means evaluating each man according to his character. A man's character can be and certainly often is impacted by the culture in which he was catechized. Certain places produce certain types of people, but no person can be fairly evaluated solely based on where they came from. A man tends to speak with the accent of his people, but he doesn't have to per se. This is true whether it works in his favor or to his deficit.
A man cannot be presumed to be innocent or guilty simply because of his skin color, gender, place of birth, or religion. A Brit may be more likely to be guilty of bad teeth, but the fact that he is British alone does not guarantee that his chompers will be wonky. Certain peoples have certain besetting sins, of course, but none is so beset that it cannot be overcome by the Spirit. Conversely, certain peoples have certain besetting virtues, but none is so beset that it must appear, especially when the man in question is doing his damnedest to keep it from growing up and out of him.
Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
A fair shake does not favor the rich or the poor for their riches or poverty respectively, but neither does it penalize the rich or the poor for their respective bank balance or brokeness. It may take those facts into account as they are relevant to the charges at hand, but they cannot, on their own, account for innocence or guilt.
“All generalizations are dangerous!" someone might say. "Even that one?" one might respond.
When Jesus condemned the Pharisees in Matthew 23, He didn’t pause to point out the exceptions, though there certainly were some, and He had met with one over midnight oil. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, but He was exempt from the accusations of Jesus’ generalization. He was exceptional precisely because he agreed with the generalization and differentiated himself from it. He did not throw shade at Jesus for throwing him under the bus, he recognized the validity of Christ's accusation and came forward as one wanting to be made clean of it.
“When Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), ‘All chairs are quite different,’ he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them ‘all chairs.’” — G.K. Chesterton, The Suicide of Thought
All that to say, you cannot say someone is guilty because he is a Jew, but neither, and especially nowadays, you cannot say someone is innocent because he is a Jew. In our time, we have to be careful to define what we mean by "Jew." If we say all Jews live in Israel, that excludes all other kinds of Jews who don't. If we say all Jews believe in the Talmud, that excludes all other kinds of Jews who don't. To Chesterton's point, all chairs cannot be entirely different if they are all chairs, but that is because chair is more clearly defined than Jews is.
