Your reply does not even begin to hold water. 1. Suppose what you said is true. Then it follows from your argument that Foxman is being presumptuous. What does it have to do with the "Jews" -- all Jews?
Inasmuch as it has nothing to do with all males, although Foxman is male; nothing to to with all Americans, although Foxman is a citizen --- it has nothing to do with all Jews although Foxman's parents were Jews.
The fact that you do not see the difference is YOUR problem: you condone someone else's, if not your own, prejudice.
2. The question is NOT, and has not NEVER been about the interpretation of scriptures --- again, that is what YOU persist to see (I wonder now why). It is about the implications.
Some Christians --- great, great many, in afct --- have thought that the events described in the scriptures IMPLY (see the difference -- not MEAN) that the living Jews are resonsible to the death of Christ (one of their own, but that point mattered not for these Christians). They acted on it: killed, mamed, robbed, burned down villages.... This occurred continuously, starting with the writings of some Church Fathers and decrees of the first Christian Emperors. The outbursts were frequent during Easter, where the crowds empassioned by the Mass would turn on their Jewish neighbors.
Thus, (i) it has nothing to do with interpretations -- you are correct, I should not be telling you how to interpret your religion; and, (ii) if the implication is my phycisal safety --- you bet I'll be "presumptuous" and tell you that you are wrong. And if that does not help, I'll kick your butt if you harass my kid in the street, thinking that that child killed Jesus Christ.
Now, what I said will not change your mind a single bit, will it?