U.S. envoy Tom Barrack walked back remarks suggesting Israel’s control of the Golan violates international law.
By World Israel News Staff
A senior American diplomat reversed comments suggesting that Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights, clarifying that his remarks do not reflect the policy of the Trump administration.
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and formally annexed the territory in 1981. The United States recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019 under President Donald Trump.
In a symbolic gesture of appreciation for Trump’s recognition, Israel established the community of Trump Heights in the Golan Heights and named it after the president.
Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Türkiye and special presidential envoy for Syria and Iraq, made the remarks suggesting Israel’s presence in the region is illegal, before subsequently walking them back after they drew attention because they contradicted Trump’s established policy toward the strategic territory.
“in the Golan, with Syria, [the IDF] still occupy the Golan against the UN resolutions, against all the international order, which has said the Golan is Syria’s,” Barrack said during an interview on the Mario Nawfal podcast.
The Associated Press subsequently asked Barrack about his remarks and their apparent inconsistency with U.S. policy.
“United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,” Barrack responded in a statement.
Other recent remarks by Barrack have also raised eyebrows, including his comments concerning U.S.-backed negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over Israeli military forces in southern Lebanon.
Israel has been reluctant to withdraw completely from parts of southern Lebanon, citing security concerns and the presence of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization that maintains military capabilities in the country.
Barrack said that, in discussions over a potential Israeli withdrawal, “there are two people missing from that (negotiating) table – Hezbollah and Iran,” a comment that appeared to suggest that both Hezbollah and Iran should have a role in the negotiations.
Barrack later sought to clarify his comments, saying he was not proposing that either entity formally join the negotiations.
He explained that “was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new [arrangement at the negotiation] table.”
