Full story
Barrack retracts Golan claim
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack walked back remarks from Friday in which he said Israel “still” occupies the Golan Heights in violation of UN resolutions, contradicting President Donald Trump’s position on the disputed territory.
“"United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,"”
In a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday, Barrack said, "United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged," and he described his earlier comments as a description of the territory’s historical status, "not an endorsement of the United Nations’ position".
The dispute over the Golan unfolded alongside Israel’s strikes on Syria, with Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz defending the Tuesday attacks on the Abu Duhur Military Air Base and saying Israel would not allow Turkey “to establish itself in Syria and threaten Israeli security.”
Barrack’s comments also drew backlash in Washington, including Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott writing on X that the ambassador appears to have “forgotten” Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory.
On Sunday, Barrack further defended his remarks about Lebanon negotiations, telling the AP that “I was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new table,” while stressing that the United States does not negotiate with Hezbollah.
Israel-Turkey tensions flare
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz condemned Barrack’s Syria-related comments, saying in a statement that Barrack’s remarks were “full of inaccuracies” and included positions that “contradict the stance of U.S. President Donald Trump himself regarding the Golan Heights.”
Katz said Israel had shared “intelligence information with the authorized parties in the United States” before the strike on the disused Abu al-Duhur Military Air Base in northwestern Syria, which Israel said was intended to prevent Turkish troops from deploying to the facility.
Barrack had written on X shortly after the strike that the United States was “deeply concerned” and described the strikes as an “unnecessary escalation,” and he told Mario Nawfal that the strike may have been intended to provoke a conflict with Türkiye ahead of Israel’s Oct. 27 general election.
In Barrack’s account, the United States investigated the intelligence and he said, "We consulted our intelligence agencies, and the answer we received was that this claim was not true," while he also suggested there may have been “a miscommunication” among Israeli parties.
The dispute spilled into Israeli politics and public criticism, with the Türkiye Today report describing Katz’s pushback against opposition leaders and parts of the media who had called the operation “unnecessary and politically motivated.”
De-escalation talks and stakes
Reuters reported that Syria and Israel held high-level talks under American mediation in Jordan on Sunday aimed at de-escalation after an Israeli strike on Syrian territory, with discussions focused on mechanisms to halt Israeli attacks, arrests, and targeting.
“high-level talks under American mediation in Jordan on Sunday aimed at de-escalation”
The Syrian Arab News Agency said the talks stressed the importance of supporting Syria’s stability and preserving regional security, including efforts to narrow differences between Turkey and Israel and to prevent tensions from spilling over into Syrian territory.
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Shibani told Reuters that Damascus expects to resume negotiations with Israel soon on a security agreement, but he said there was a lack of trust between the sides and that contacts broke off after the Israeli strike on the Syrian al-‘Abu al-Duhur Air Base.
In the same Reuters reporting, Syria emphasized that the immediate priority is the withdrawal of Israeli forces to lines prior to December 8, 2024, and the reactivation and full implementation of the 1974 disengagement agreement.
France 24 also quoted al-Shaibani urging Israel to seize a “historic opportunity” and said Damascus’s priority is to "stop the attacks first," as the two sides weigh whether negotiations can restart without further escalation.