{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02936630602782071, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00231839258114374, 'mean_word_length': 4.807174887892376, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Visibility” and “Invisibility”

One of the most obvious reactions to the horrific consequences of Nazi antiSemitism was to attack the stereotype of the Jew on which it was based and to claim that, if Jews were in any way “different”, it was as a result of the pressures imposed on them by society to conform to an image not of their own making. In reality, to quote from Max Frisch’s influential parable The Jew from Andorra,2 they were Andorrans just “like the rest of us”. Subsequently, it was demonstrated that you could have “anti-Semitism without Jews” or even without antiSemites.3 In the name of a universalistic humanism, the Jew disappeared from the text; he was an invention of the anti-Semite, not of Jewish history or tradition. Sartre was clearly uncomfortable about this implication of his theory, but his well-meaning recommendation to the Jews to embrace “authenticity” not only leaves the content of this authenticity entirely unclear, it results in an unfortunate discrimination against those who might rather be ordinary French than authentic Jews.4 On the Zionist side, there was a similar problem in the advocacy of the view that the Jews were, or should become, a “people like any other”, as if this were merely a matter of discarding unnecessary historical baggage. Such