Ann Bernes, Swedish Chair of the IHRA ddressing to the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on 26 January 2023. (Photo credit: IHRA)

When one has to lie through conscious decisions, or say untrue things due to a lack of understanding of the subject matter, and make false accusations – they’re both equally harmful and a drain on public resources.

Below, Mr Alpern outlines what he believes constitutes antisemitism in this instance:

The redacted words presented here is not the full picture and completely distorts the IHRA definition.

The full text of that particular IHRA point is this:

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”

Operative word being “might”, meaning it may or may not be the case.

And pertinently, it must target the state of Israel “as a Jewish collective”. for it to even be up for consideration whether it is antisemitism or not.

The comment Mr Alpern is referring to does not target Israel as a “Jewish collective” and so therefore, it can’t even be considered for potential antisemitism.

It simply doesn’t even come close to being a consideration.

People like Bernie Alpern are widespread across social media and real life – there needs to be a deep self-reflection on their part on why they take these evidently clear incorrect positions.

We have many similar examples of these types of falsehoods.

Is it a conscious decision, or is it a lack of sufficient understanding of what actual antisemitism is?

In general, I presume it is a combination of both.