U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun is defending the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, arguing that governments and international institutions should not single out Israel for condemnation while overlooking comparable actions by other countries. During an appearance at the Israel Hayom Summit in New York, Kaploun said the definition addresses what he considers a double standard in international criticism of Israel. “One of the IHRA points is that you cannot just condemn Israel! You can't pick Israel and single out Israel if you're going to criticize Israel!” he stated. He argued that criticism of Israeli actions should be accompanied by consistent scrutiny of other governments, pointing specifically to Iran's treatment of its own citizens and China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims. “If you want to say Israel's killing Palestinians, we also have to discuss that the Iranians are killing their citizens, or the Chinese are killing Uyghurs!” Kaploun's position reflects his broader argument that international institutions must apply consistent standards when addressing human rights and allegations of wrongdoing.

Kaploun's remarks have renewed attention on the international debate over how antisemitism should be defined and where legitimate criticism of Israel ends. The IHRA's 2016 working definition is legally nonbinding and identifies certain forms of targeting Israel or applying double standards as potential examples of antisemitism, while explicitly stating that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism of any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Critics of broader applications of the definition have warned that it could be used to discourage legitimate debate about Israeli government policies, while supporters argue that it provides an important framework for identifying antisemitic rhetoric disguised as political criticism. Kaploun has maintained that the definition does not prohibit criticism of Israel but requires critics to apply consistent standards across countries. His comments also highlight a continuing disagreement over whether singling out Israel reflects a genuine double standard or legitimate scrutiny of a government whose actions are under international examination. The debate is likely to remain central to discussions about antisemitism, freedom of expression and the treatment of Israel in international forums.