The US envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack stated that his remarks - in which he considered Israel’s control over the Syrian Golan Heights to constitute an “occupation and a violation of UN resolutions” - were a description of a well-known historical context, emphasizing that United States policy has not changed.
On Saturday, Barrack had stated that Israel continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights, describing the matter as “violating United Nations resolutions and all international pacts which confirm that the Golan Heights is Syrian land.”
This position contradicts the stance of President Donald Trump’s administration, which recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019.
The matter was initially met with consideration as a significant shift in decades-long American policy, before Barrack walked back to clarify his intended meaning, which aligns with White House policies.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz described Barrack’s statements as “full of fallacies that contradict the position of the American President,” referencing Trump’s 2019 declaration recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Barrack clarified to “Asharq” that he pointed to the United Nations in his recent statements as evidence of the point he was making, which is that “lands seized by force remain a subject of conflict for generations, and in this case, the situation has persisted for more than 50 years, and the issue remains pending in the United Nations.”
He added: “I am saying that understandings reached through negotiations are what endure, not maps.
Reference was made to the United Nations to support its position. US policy regarding the Golan was defined by President Donald Trump in 2019, and no change has occurred to it.”
Clarification regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah
Regarding Lebanon, Barrack emphasized that “the United States is negotiating with the Lebanese government as the sole legitimate authority,” noting that the framework signed with the government in Washington on June 26 provides a historic opportunity to achieve peace and prosperity in Lebanon.
Barrack had sparked controversy following statements he made during an interview published Friday on the "X" platform with Australian-Lebanese activist Mario Nawfal.
In that interview, he stated that the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations lack a decision-making party, considering that the parties capable of making a decision are “Iran and Hezbollah,” and asserting that “any serious settlement in Lebanon must include Hezbollah and Iran.”
Thus, the US envoy viewed that “any serious settlement in Lebanon requires the presence of Hezbollah and Iran at the negotiation table, and that the US negotiation team is now seeking to involve them in the process.”
In his response to a question by “Asharq” regarding the implications of his controversial statements, Barrack said: “My point was that implementing the June framework requires an explicit confrontation with the issue of who owns the weapons and who supplies them. I was describing the difficulty of the problem, and I was not suggesting a new negotiation table. Hezbollah is designated as a foreign terrorist organization. We do not negotiate with it, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. My statements should be read in their full context.”
He continued: “In this context, I raised the questions that any fair observer must ask. The weapons in question are provided and funded by Iran, and since Iran and Hezbollah are not at the negotiation table, what would ultimately drive them to act? How can Hezbollah accept its disarmament? And who, besides Tehran, supports the communities of the South, so that the funds upon which the political cover for the party’s arsenal relies can be replaced with something better?”
Barrack deemed that “raising these questions does not grant any party legitimacy or status. Rather, it is a prerequisite for answering them, and answering these questions is precisely what the authors of the framework are working to achieve.”
