A statement Defense Minister Yisrael Katz put out via Twitter/X on Saturday was unusual on two counts.
First, it was posted on Shabbat afternoon – something generally done only in emergency or especially unusual situations. Second, it included a frontal critique of an influential US administration figure: Washington’s ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and Iraq, Tom Barrack.
On Friday, Barrack was hosted on Mario Nawfal’s podcast and, while discussing last Tuesday’s IDF bombing of the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northern Syria, made several remarks that – and this is an understatement – raised eyebrows in Jerusalem.
First, he contradicted US policy and said that Israel was occupying the Golan Heights in contravention of UN resolutions and the “international order.” In 2019, US President Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.
Second, he said that Israel’s attack may have been an attempt to “bait” the Turks before the October 27 election, something he said would play well with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s base.
Third, he said that the US checked into intelligence Israel provided, showing that Turkey was planning to move troops and equipment into the site, and found that it was incorrect.
And, fourth, he said that Turkey, including its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was not interested in “attacking” or in any kind of “adversarial” relationship with Israel. Ironically, this statement came just as Turkey called for Interpol to issue a request to law enforcement agencies worldwide to arrest Netanyahu and a number of other Israeli officials on various charges, including genocide.
Barrack’s version of what happened last Tuesday is pretty significant. It goes beyond the boilerplate complaint that Israel often hears from Washington after carrying out a strike: that it was done without sufficient coordination with the US. Here you have a senior US official publicly disputing Israel’s threat assessment and floating an electoral motive for the attack.
Katz responds to Barrack’s comments
Apparently, Katz thought Barrack’s comments serious enough to warrant a swift response – even on Shabbat.
He wrote that Israel had clear intelligence indicating that Turkey planned to take actions at the site that would endanger Israeli security, and that the IAF attack was taken only after Israel delivered a direct warning to the Syrian regime and provided the necessary intel to the relevant US authorities.
“When the Syrian regime did not heed the warning, the strike was authorized and successfully carried out,” Katz wrote. “Erdogan was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and was forced to back down.”
Katz said that Barrack’s comments were “full of inaccuracies” and that his position on the Golan contradicts Trump’s own policy. He also said that efforts by opposition leaders and some in the media to paint the operation in Syria in “political colors” stem from “a combination of ignorance, a lack of understanding of Israel’s security interests, and a constant desire to attack the government – and it is deserving of every condemnation.”
Though he prefaced that comment by directly addressing it to opposition politicians and media figures, it is difficult to believe – since Barrack made the same speculation – that he was not also included in this group.
The brickbats come at a particularly sensitive time, as Barrack is trying to reduce the temperature between Israel and Turkey. The problem is that with comments such as these – clearly siding with Turkey’s explanation and interpretation of the events, perhaps as a result of his job as ambassador to Turkey – Barrack is harming his ability to play a constructive role.
Barack may have undermined his credibility as a mediator between Syria and Israel
Barrack’s dual role as ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria matters. As ambassador to Turkey, he is responsible for reassuring Ankara; as Syria envoy, he is supposed to mediate a potential Israel–Syria security arrangement. By publicly appearing to credit the Turkish-Syrian account over Israel’s, he may have undermined his standing in Jerusalem as a trusted intermediary.
Barrack, in other words, is now becoming part of the dispute he is meant to manage – hardly the ideal position for a mediator.
By publicly questioning Israel’s intelligence, suggesting an electoral motive behind the strike, whitewashing Erdogan’s antipathy toward Israel, and contradicting Trump on the Golan Heights, Barrack may have reassured Ankara – where he temporarily lives and works – but at the cost of losing Israeli confidence in his ability to play the role of mediator.
Doubts about Barrack’s objectivity predate this particular incident.
Differences between Barrack and Israel surfaced over Lebanon earlier this year, with disagreements about how to deal with Hezbollah and its Iranian patron.
Following the June 26 trilateral Framework Agreement brokered in Washington, Israel expected a policy aimed at isolating Hezbollah, restoring Lebanese sovereignty and keeping Iran out of Lebanon’s political and military future. From Jerusalem’s perspective, all that was essential to secure the northern border.
Barrack, however, argued that no lasting settlement can be reached without involving Hezbollah and Iran. Because Lebanon is caught up in the wider conflict between Israel and Iran, he said, both must be part of any serious effort to resolve it. “How is it going to go away if you don’t have Hezbollah and Iran involved?” he asked, describing Lebanon as a “very complicated Rubik’s cube where removing one piece moves three others.”
Jerusalem viewed that approach as legitimizing Hezbollah and giving Iran a continuing say over Lebanon’s future.
A trusted mediator must understand both parties’ concerns
This does not mean that Barrack must accept Israel’s position on every issue. A mediator is not an advocate for either side. But to be effective, he must convince both sides that he understands their concerns, takes their intelligence seriously, and is not publicly embracing the other side’s version of events.
That is what makes Katz’s unusual Shabbat statement significant. It was more than a rebuttal of a few inaccurate comments. It was a public warning that Israel’s confidence in the man Washington has chosen to manage some of the region’s most delicate disputes is beginning to erode.
Barrack wants to lower the temperature between Israel and Turkey. To do that, however, he will first have to restore a measure of trust with Jerusalem. A mediator whom one side increasingly sees as speaking for the other will have a difficult time mediating anything.
