-
Al-Sharaa to Trump: Why Not Give Them New Jersey Instead of the Golan Heights?
Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa has sparked widespread controversy with his remarks on the future of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, stressing that the United States’ recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory does not invalidate the Syrians’ right to it, nor does it grant any party the authority to relinquish it.
Al-Sharaa said that U.S. President Donald Trump had previously issued a historic decision to lift sanctions on Syria, expressing his great respect for him and noting that they share a very special relationship. He added that he had joked with Trump during his visit to the White House about the U.S. decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Al-Sharaa explained that he had told the U.S. president at the time: “Why not give them New Jersey? Why give them the Golan Heights when you do not even own it to give it to Israel?” In a joking context, he added that the state of New Jersey—which he believed was largely home to voters who do not support Trump—might be a better option, since it is territory over which the U.S. president has authority, as he put it.
However, al-Sharaa stressed that his position on the Golan Heights went beyond humor, saying: “The Golan belongs to its people, and it is for its people.” He affirmed that no Syrian or American president, nor any other party, has the right to relinquish the territory or grant it to another side.
Al-Sharaa’s remarks have brought the debate over the future of the Golan Heights back into the spotlight, as Israel continues to uphold its decision to annex the occupied territory, while Syria and the majority of the international community reject recognition of the annexation. His statements also raise questions about whether Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Israeli government could be persuaded to reconsider the U.S. decision concerning the Golan Heights.
While the nature of any potential political move on the issue remains unclear, Damascus maintains that the Golan is a matter of sovereignty and historic rights that cannot be settled through a unilateral decision, and that the territory’s future should be determined by its people—not imposed on them from outside.
