Implied so that any reader with an antisemitic bent would make the assumption. And look, you did...
Look, man. Obviously not every Israeli tourist is bad. However, the article is specifically about a response to Israeli tourists being bad, and protests by Jews calling the (obviously inappropriate) response anti-Semitism. If you read that, and your first thought is, "Well, the sign didn't specifically say it was an Israeli tourist who stole the bike... clearly everyone is just jumping to conclusions because they're racist!", I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole situation.
What makes more sense? 1) Israeli tourists cause problems in shop, including stealing a sled. Shop owner posts sign banning Israeli tourists from the shop. Or 2) Some random non-Israeli causes problems in the shop, shop owner bans Israeli tourists because for unrelated reasons?
Obviously we don't know, because the shop owner didn't respond to their request for comment. However, based on the information we've been given, elementary school level reading comprehension suggests that situation (1) is the correct one.
Pointing that out isn't anti-Semitism, but if you come into a thread specifically expecting and searching for anti-Semitism, you're going to see it everywhere, and I think that's what's happening here.
If you read the article you notice the investigation into the sign but nowhere do you see a report made of the stolen sled only an allegation by the owner. Not saying it didn't happen but which makes more sense, you guys are seeing what you want to see or your being foolish? your choice?
Given the owner could not be reached for comment, all the article has to go on is his sign. I'm choosing to assume he experienced a sleight that prompted (inappropriate) action on his part, and you're (apparently) choosing to assume he made the whole thing up just because he hates Jews and wanted to ban them from his shop.
I'm perfectly happy to change my view on this when the shop owner's account comes out if it proves warranted, but I'll point out that the article did not comment on the veracity of the claim at all, and if it could have been reasonably proven illegitimate, I assume it would have.
I don't think either of our positions here are wholly unreasonable, but I do think that trying to claim anti-Semitism any time anyone has a critical opinion of anyone from Israel, you're diluting the term and generally making it meaningless.
Edit: To be clear, I'm specifically referring to you calling me an anti-Semite because of my read of an article, not the assumption that the shop owner is an anti-Semite because of a ridiculous sign.
Incorrect. You are choosing to assume while I am NOTand to turn a phrase, we all know what happens when we assume, don't we?
But you are assuming, you're just mincing words. You're taking a stance on something the article does not explicitly state. That is an assumption.
Implied so that any reader with an antisemitic bent would make the assumption. And look, you did...
Look, man. Obviously not every Israeli tourist is bad. However, the article is specifically about a response to Israeli tourists being bad, and protests by Jews calling the (obviously inappropriate) response anti-Semitism. If you read that, and your first thought is, "Well, the sign didn't specifically say it was an Israeli tourist who stole the bike... clearly everyone is just jumping to conclusions because they're racist!", I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole situation.
What makes more sense? 1) Israeli tourists cause problems in shop, including stealing a sled. Shop owner posts sign banning Israeli tourists from the shop. Or 2) Some random non-Israeli causes problems in the shop, shop owner bans Israeli tourists because for unrelated reasons?
Obviously we don't know, because the shop owner didn't respond to their request for comment. However, based on the information we've been given, elementary school level reading comprehension suggests that situation (1) is the correct one.
Pointing that out isn't anti-Semitism, but if you come into a thread specifically expecting and searching for anti-Semitism, you're going to see it everywhere, and I think that's what's happening here.
If you read the article you notice the investigation into the sign but nowhere do you see a report made of the stolen sled only an allegation by the owner. Not saying it didn't happen but which makes more sense, you guys are seeing what you want to see or your being foolish? your choice?
Given the owner could not be reached for comment, all the article has to go on is his sign. I'm choosing to assume he experienced a sleight that prompted (inappropriate) action on his part, and you're (apparently) choosing to assume he made the whole thing up just because he hates Jews and wanted to ban them from his shop.
I'm perfectly happy to change my view on this when the shop owner's account comes out if it proves warranted, but I'll point out that the article did not comment on the veracity of the claim at all, and if it could have been reasonably proven illegitimate, I assume it would have.
I don't think either of our positions here are wholly unreasonable, but I do think that trying to claim anti-Semitism any time anyone has a critical opinion of anyone from Israel, you're diluting the term and generally making it meaningless.
Edit: To be clear, I'm specifically referring to you calling me an anti-Semite because of my read of an article, not the assumption that the shop owner is an anti-Semite because of a ridiculous sign.
Incorrect. You are choosing to assume while I am NOTand to turn a phrase, we all know what happens when we assume, don't we?
But you are assuming, you're just mincing words. You're taking a stance on something the article does not explicitly state. That is an assumption.
Obligatory:
Nope.