NEW YORK, UNITED STATES | The Zionist Organization of America is calling on President Donald Trump to remove U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack from his diplomatic and envoy posts, accusing him of insubordination and hostility toward Israel after Barrack said Israel still occupies the Golan Heights and suggested a recent Israeli strike in Syria may have unnecessarily escalated tensions with Turkey.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein issued the demand on August 25, arguing that Barrack, who also serves as Trump’s special presidential envoy for Syria and Iraq, has repeatedly expressed positions that conflict with established U.S. policy.
The most immediate controversy concerns comments Barrack made during an interview with commentator Mario Nawfal.
“In the Golan with Syria, they still occupy the Golan against the [United Nations] resolutions, against all of the international order which has said the Golan is Syria’s,” Barrack said.
The statement conflicted with formal U.S. policy established by Trump in 2019 recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Trump’s recognition reversed decades of U.S. policy. The United Nations and most of the international community continue to regard the territory as occupied Syrian land, but Washington’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty has remained U.S. policy.
Barrack Clarifies Golan Comments
Following criticism from Republican lawmakers and pro-Israel organizations, Barrack clarified his remarks.
He told The Associated Press that he had been describing the historical and international dispute over the territory, not endorsing the UN position.
“United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,” Barrack said.
He said his broader point was that territorial disputes created through force can remain contested for generations and that negotiated arrangements are more durable.
ZOA rejected that explanation.
The organization said Barrack’s original wording plainly contradicted Trump’s policy and argued that an ambassador is responsible for advancing the president’s foreign policy, not articulating alternative formulations.
“As an ambassador, Barrack works for President Trump, and not the UN,” ZOA said in its statement.
Rick Scott Also Criticizes Barrack
Barrack’s comments drew criticism from Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican.
Scott wrote on X that Barrack appeared to have forgotten Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and reminded him that ambassadors confirmed by the Senate are expected to implement the president’s agenda.
“President Trump has been CLEAR about Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights for years,” Scott wrote.
ZOA specifically praised Scott for publicly challenging Barrack.
ZOA Director of Government Relations Dan Pollak said the Senate should insist that Barrack’s public remarks remain consistent with U.S. policy.
“The President is entitled to name whoever he thinks is best to the post of Ambassador, but he was confirmed to execute the President’s policies and not his own,” Pollak said.
“We urge the Senate to demand that the comments of the Ambassador be constrained by the actual foreign policy of the United States.”
Israel-Turkey Dispute Adds to Controversy
ZOA also objected to Barrack’s reaction to Israel’s recent strike on the Abu Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria.
Israel struck the Syrian facility amid concerns that Turkey was preparing to increase its military presence there.
Barrack questioned the necessity of the strike and suggested one possible explanation was that Israel had sought to provoke Turkey.
“One theory is they were just baiting Turkiye,” Barrack said, adding that such a move could be politically advantageous in an election environment.
He also said U.S. intelligence had not confirmed the presence of Turkish military personnel at the airbase at the time.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rejected Barrack’s characterization and said the strike was based on clear intelligence and conducted on the recommendation of the Israel Defense Forces.
Katz said Israel would not permit Turkey to establish a military presence in Syria that could threaten Israeli security.
Reuters reported that Washington has since been working on a deconfliction mechanism among Israel, Turkey and Syria designed to prevent an accidental military confrontation.
ZOA sided firmly with Israel’s security assessment.
It argued that the Abu Duhur base remained Syrian territory and that Turkey’s contemplated military use of the facility would itself have altered the regional status quo.
Broader Concerns About Barrack’s Approach to Turkey
ZOA’s criticism extends well beyond the latest dispute.
The organization accused Barrack of being too closely aligned with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and argued that he has consistently taken positions sympathetic to Ankara while minimizing Israeli security concerns.
Turkey was removed from the U.S. F-35 fighter program after purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defense system.
Barrack has publicly supported reconsidering Turkey’s access to the aircraft. In July, Trump himself said the United States would consider allowing Turkey to purchase F-35s while acknowledging that legal and congressional obstacles remained.
ZOA opposes such a move and argues that Turkey’s conduct toward Israel, Greece, Cyprus and Kurdish groups should make Washington more cautious.
The organization also criticized Barrack for not speaking more forcefully about Turkey’s continued control of northern Cyprus, an issue dating to the Turkish military intervention of 1974.
ZOA’s description of Erdogan as an “Islamist dictator” reflects the organization’s characterization, not an official U.S. designation.
Hezbollah and Iran Remarks Also Draw Scrutiny
Barrack has also faced criticism over remarks concerning Israel-Lebanon negotiations.
In discussing talks over Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah’s weapons, Barrack said “there are two people missing from that table,” referring to Hezbollah and Iran.
The comment prompted speculation that he believed Washington should involve Hezbollah or Tehran directly in negotiations.
Barrack subsequently denied that interpretation.
“Hezbollah is a designated foreign terrorist organization. We do not negotiate with it, and nothing I said suggests otherwise,” he told The Associated Press.
“I was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new table.”
ZOA nevertheless said the initial formulation undermined efforts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to exclude Hezbollah and Iran from formal negotiations.
The organization argues that Hezbollah, as an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, should not be granted diplomatic legitimacy.
Earlier Comments About Israel Add to ZOA’s Case
ZOA also cited a series of earlier statements by Barrack as evidence of what it sees as a broader pattern.
In April, Barrack drew criticism after saying that parties to Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire arrangements had been “equally untrustworthy.”
He later defended that statement as a description of repeated violations and mutual distrust surrounding the ceasefire rather than an attempt to morally equate Israel with Hezbollah.
In December 2025, Barrack sparked another controversy at the Doha Forum when discussing governance in the Middle East.
“I don’t see a democracy anywhere,” Barrack said.
“Israel can claim that it’s a democracy, but in this region, really what has worked the best, whether you like it or don’t like it, is a benevolent monarchy.”
The remarks came in the context of an argument against Western attempts to impose democratic systems rapidly on post-Assad Syria.
Barrack later described Israel as a functioning democracy, but the earlier comments prompted criticism from Republican lawmakers and Israeli observers.
ZOA included the episode in its case for removing him.
ZOA Says Ambassadors Must Follow Presidential Policy
Klein framed the dispute as a question of diplomatic discipline rather than simply disagreement over Middle East policy.
“Ambassadors have to remember they are working for the President and are not free to invent their own foreign policy,” Klein said.
“I have known several ambassadors to Israel and America, and each has made it clear to me that they were speaking for the policy of the President and not expressing their own opinions.”
“This case is particularly galling, since each of these examples has done real damage to the policies of the United States.”
Barrack’s defenders argue that his comments reflect the complicated realities he is attempting to manage across Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.
Richard Grenell, Trump’s special presidential envoy for special missions, defended Barrack this week, saying he was “doing exactly what he’s asked to do.”
That defense highlights the central unresolved question.
Barrack has repeatedly insisted that his remarks are analytical descriptions of regional realities rather than departures from administration policy.
ZOA says the distinction is no longer persuasive.
For the organization, the Golan Heights controversy was not an isolated misstatement but the latest example of an envoy whose public commentary has repeatedly forced the Trump administration to explain, clarify or defend U.S. policy toward Israel.
ZOA’s demand now puts the issue directly before the White House: whether Barrack’s unusually outspoken diplomatic style remains an asset in a volatile region, or whether it has become a liability for an administration that continues to describe Israel as one of America’s closest allies.
TheJ.ca receives no government money. Independent journalism depends on readers who believe these stories must be told. Please consider supporting our efforts.
Stand Proud. Stand Strong. Stand Zionist.
