On the first, logical inference: we assume, from experience, in most cases, if someone is angry at another person, if one person attacks another, that the second party, the recipient of the aggression, had some culpability. Rape victims know this which is why they often hide the crime. We have a cliche: where there is smoke there is fire.
However every Jew knows that this logical inference can be wrong when applied to Jews. The 'Blood Libel' that Jews kill children for their blood to be used in Jewish rituals, is a 1,000 years old and has been used incessantly (still common today) in Europe and the Middle East. We know that not a word of it is true. The Blood Libel never happened yet the accusation has been made many millions of time. Tens of millions of times. Logical inference is wrong when it comes to Jews.
On the second, universal humanism, we
confront the assumption and experience that most humans are very much
alike, and should be given the same rights.
However, Jews for more than 1,000 years have never had the right to self defense. That long history has eroded a footpath in the minds of Europeans and their co-evals, that Jews don't have the right to self defense today. Israel is condemned daily for acts of self defense. The tread worn path in the mental history of most people is that Jews don't have the right to self defense. For Jews, universal humanism does not include the right to self defense.
My two points: if you are a Jew, people can lie about you with absolutely no rational or factual basis and you as a Jew have no historic right to self defense.One thousand years of experience says I'm right.