|Israel Resource Review
||18th October, 2002
Interview with Israel
Government Press Office Director Daniel Seaman
Interview in Kol HaIr, October 11, 2002
. . . Danny Seaman knows exactly why the State of Israel looks so bad on
television screens around the world.
"At the direct instruction of the Palestinian Authority," explains the
director of the Government Press Office (GPO), "the offices of the foreign
networks in Jerusalem are compelled to hire Palestinian directors and
producers. Those people determine what is broadcast. The journalists will
certainly deny that, but that is reality."
Question: What makes you so sure?
"A lot of sources that, if exposed, will be compromised professionally.
Those are people who were outraged by the events in those offices."
Question: Which offices are we talking about?
"The most senior are the Associated Press and Reuters, which provide
information to hundreds of millions of people around the world. On the
second level are the major television networks, CNN and the BBC, and the
American stations, ABC and CBS."
Seaman claims that the Palestinian workers at the various networks work with
complete coordination. But that is nothing. "Three senior producers,"
alleges the GPO director with deep internal conviction, "were coordinated
with Marwan Barghouti. He used to call them and inform them about what was
about to happen. They always received early warning about gunfire on Gilo.
Then they shot for TV only the Israeli response fire on Beit Jala. Those
producers advised Barghouti how to get the Palestinian message across
Question: After the accusations give me some names.
"I'm not prepared to divulge details. Everyone who deals with this knows
who they are."
In his professional capacity Seaman mediates between the foreign
journalists and the various authorities in Israel. While the latter receive
ample representation, the former are perceived as a rather bothersome
nuisance. Seaman is not ashamed to admit it. He considers the foreign
correspondents to be a bunch of spoiled brats that until now has received
privileged conditions and has repaid that by giving back the finger.
"They've grown accustomed to being treated very freely in Israel," said
Seaman, "but the liberty that we gave them was abused."
Seaman, a civil servant, does not mince words when he describes the foreign
media's conduct in Israel. He levels harsh accusations at the foreign
correspondents, some of which sound rather odd. Not only are they entwined
with the Palestinian Authority by means of a Gordian knot, but they also
steal Israelis' livelihoods. But things here will be A.O.K soon enough.
Seaman will set those gentiles straight.
Last week Ma'ariv reported that the GPO would issue press cards to foreign
photographers and production staffers only if they obtained a work permit
from the Labor and Welfare Ministry and a visa from the Interior Ministry.
At stake is an old law that has never been enforced until now. It means that
the number of foreign workers in offices in Israel is expected to be cut
substantially. But even before Seaman decided to revoke the press cards from
all the residents of the territories.
Officials at the news agencies and the networks find it very difficult to
understand, or at least feign innocence, as to what exactly it is that
Danny Seaman wants from them. Israelis, after all, are barred from entering
the territories, say the office managers and, therefore, without foreign
photographers and Palestinian reporters it is very difficult to work and
perhaps even impossible. They reject with disdain Seaman's allegations
about pro-Palestinian coverage. "I've had Palestinian workers for years
already," says Charles Enderlin, the veteran France 2 TV correspondent, "and
they have proven their professionalism. Regardless, there is no bureau
chief who allows his Palestinian assistant to decide what is broadcast. I
deny that allegation outright."
"We don't make the news, we only broadcast it," say the foreign journalists
defensively. Quite a few of them feel, even if they won't say so explicitly,
that someone who didn't like the message has decided to kill the messenger.
Seaman, 41, was born in Germany. His father was a member of the US
Airforce, and his family followed him around across the world. In 1971 they
immigrated to Israel and settled in Ashkelon. Seaman served in the
paratroopers, and after his discharge studied political science in New
At the same time he also began to do public relations work for the Israeli
consulate in New York. When he returned to Israel in 1990 he found work in
the GPO. He spent two years with the IDF Spokesman's Office, and in January
2001 was appointed director of the GPO. "I am the first director who was
not appointed for political reasons," he says proudly.
Seaman defines his job as "dual and restrictive. On the one hand, I need to
represent the State of Israel and its interests to the foreign media, and
on the other hand, I am supposed to represent the foreign reporters to the
government and to create an appropriate media atmosphere for them.
Sometimes the one role supersedes and other times the other does."
Question: Which is more dominant now?
"Today there is a greater need to look out for the State of Israel's
interests because we are in an emergency situation."
The impression is that Israel has nothing to be concerned about, Seaman is
doing his job. He always arrives at the scenes of the major terror attacks
and tries to help the journalists gain access as quickly as possible to the
material. Seaman has also made a point of attending Marwan Barghouti's
trial. "The GPO is not covering the trial," he explains, "but it would be
negligent were we not to capitalize on this event for public relations. Our
job is to allow coverage." MK Ahmed Tibi, who also has used the trial for
public relations purposes, is angry at Seaman. "Seaman's behavior in the
court room is beyond the pale," says Tibi. "He asks the journalists to
interview the families of terror victims. That is none of his business,
that is an editor's job."
Seaman fought back: "Ahmed Tibi would be pleased were the State of Israel
not to exist at all," says Seaman. "So he finds it jarring that the state
is doing its job. I would urge him to learn to respect the courts before he
comments to me about how to do my job."
Seaman has a clear understanding about how the Palestinians succeeded in
seizing control of the television screens. He said that in the 1980s the
Palestinians began to nurture young people who would work with the foreign
press. He also alleges that all of the Palestinians who work with the media
took a course in media manipulation at Bir Zeit University.
The effort paid off, if one is to believe Seaman. "For years," he explained,
"the foreign reporters created a kind of romanticism surrounding the
Palestinians' struggle. They adopted their point of view and their
terminology." Seaman, who claims to be apolitical, said this process was
exacerbated also by the "discourse in Israel. From the moment that the old
Land of Israel lost the elections in 1977 the delegitimizing that was done
to all the right wing leaders, Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu and Sharon,
contributed to the struggle to delegitimize that the Palestinians launched
Seaman is convinced that the foreign journalists were able to move about the
territories freely and speak with whomever they wanted before Arafat's
arrival. "From the moment Arafat arrived," explains Seaman, "their
dependence on Palestinian media staffers grew. And the more the PA tightened
its hold on the ground and the closer the date of the conflict grew, the
Palestinian hold on the foreign press became firmer. Four years ago began
the threats on the Israeli staffers, including Arabs from East Jerusalem.
The Palestinians let the foreign journalists understand: if you don't work
with our people we'll sever contact with you, you won't have access to
sources of information and you won't get interviews."
Seaman is certain that the overwhelming majority of the media bowed to this
pressure. He is not prepared to give any credit to the Palestinian
journalists who work in the foreign networks. "Today we know," Seaman says
in a heated tone, "that the entire Mohammed a-Dura incident was staged in
advance by the Palestinian Authority in collusion with Palestinian
photographers, who worked for the foreign networks. In my opinion, that is
the incident that really began the Intifada. Until then it hadn't caught on."
Palestinian stills photographers are also part of the game. "They always
stage photographs," says Seaman unequivocally and states that he is prepared
to be taken to court for libel. "The IDF announces that it is going in to
demolish an empty house, but somehow afterwards you see a picture of a
crying child sitting on the rubble. There is an economic level to that. The
Palestinian photographers receive from the foreign agencies 300 dollars for
good pictures; that is why they deliberately create provocation with the
soldiers. They've degraded photography to prostitution." Seaman gives the
foreign media a five on a scale of one to ten for its coverage of the events
in the past two years. As noted, he believes that nearly all of them are
infected. "They're hostile," he says, and itemizes: they being the French,
the Spaniards, the BBC. The hostility manifests itself in the writing, the
tendentious footage, the automatic adoption of the Palestinian version and
the immediate suspicion of the Israeli version.
In the course of the siege on Bethlehem the Palestinians claimed
that we killed a monk. No one bothered to pick up the phone and
speak to the Pope's representative to hear from him that nothing
of the kind had happened."
Seaman has no problem harping on the Europeans' conscience. "I accuse," he
says without a moment of hesitation, "particularly the European press. The
correspondents reported about every slander against Israel as if it were a
fact. The negligence of their coverage contributed to the anti-Semitism that
is now making rounds on the continent, and that ought to lie heavily on
their consciences." Four Western journalists received special attention from
Actually, at issue was a lack of attention. Seaman has no problem naming
names: Suzanne Goldberg from the British Guardian, Lee Hockstader from the
Washington Post, Sandro Contenta from the Toronto Star and Gillian Findlay
from ABC. Seaman accuses each one of the four of inaccurate reporting, to
understate things. Now, none of the four are in Israel any longer. "We
simply boycotted them," recounts Seaman. "We didn't revoke their press
cards, because this is a democratic country. But in the name of that same
value I also have the right not work with them. The editorial boards got the
message and replaced their people. When the Washington Post saw that a
smaller newspaper, such as the Baltimore Sun, was getting exclusive
material, they understood that they had a problem."
Some of those who were ousted have come out ahead. Suzanne Goldberg was
promoted to Washington, and the one reporter who made it big is Rula Amin.
The famous Palestinian reporter for CNN whose reports from here in Operation
Defensive Shield were perceived by many as being authored by the Palestinian
Information Ministry, now reports from Baghdad and has a lot of screen time.
Seaman tries to stay calm. "When the CNN executives visited here," he says,
"they led us to understand that if we drop the issue of her, she would find
herself on the way out. The fact that she is now in Baghdad attests to the
professional level of the network and to the [value of] the word of its
When the Kol Ha'Ir photographer asked to take Seaman's picture against the
backdrop of a television screen, he agreed only if the television was turned
to Fox, the cheaper alternative that the cable companies found to CNN.
Seaman says he does not regret the impending loss. "Personally, I don't like
CNN's broadcasts in Israel," he says, "because it is their European network.
If it were the American network maybe it would disturb me more."
Foreign reporters and editors at the JCS building on Jaffa road in
Jerusalem, where the offices of some of the leading foreign media services
in the world are located, were rather stunned this week by Seaman's
statements. "I cannot believe," says Charles Enderlin, "that Mr. Seaman,
the director of the Government Press Office, would make those kinds of
accusations. If that is how they want to do public relations here then I
don't understand a thing about the country that I've been living in for the
past 34 years."
Enderlin says that there were isolated instances of Palestinian pressure on
local issues. He said that the Foreign Press Association in Israel found an
appropriate response: "We decided that if a photographer from one of the
networks captures a picture that the PA wants to confiscate then everyone
is allowed to use it." Another senior journalist admits that some of the
Palestinian journalists must naturally support the Palestinian national
struggle, but he stresses that he encounters far more often displays of
courage. "It is very difficult to produce free media in the territories
today, but they succeed in doing that," says the journalist.
In response to this article, Tim Heritage, the bureau chief at Reuters, said
"Seaman's accusations are absurd and baseless." Andrew Steele, the BBC
Jerusalem bureau chief, said: "The BBC has an international reputation
because of its objectivity and balance. The thought that a few of our more
experienced journalists suddenly developed complete dependency on
Palestinian sources and that the Palestinian workers decide which news will
be broadcast abroad could be funny if it were not so insulting. It is even
more infuriating when one bears in mind that Mr. Seaman's office has been
barring press cards from our Palestinian staff members."
[Translation by the Israel News Agency]
friendly version of this article
Return to Contents
Dennis Ross, Now the Head of
the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy", Speaks in
Israel Resource News Agency California Correspondent
Berkeley, California, October 16th --- Dennis Ross, chief
negotiator of the Oslo agreement came to the UC Berkeley campus
today to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Ross, who
personally negotiated between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak
outlined the current situation in the Middle East and what was
needed to move forward.
After first digressing by laying out the case for the Bush
administration's need to go after Saddam Hussein and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in which he explained the Iraqi leaders' continual violations of weapons inspections agreed on by the Iraqi dictator since the Gulf War he then went on to discuss the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.
Ross emphasized the main problem to successful negotiations was that neither side "trusted" the other. During his speech he acknowledged and even criticized the Palestinian tactic of constantly portraying itself as a victim of Israeli agression and even of lying about what was orignally offered at Camp David and Oslo .
Describing the current Israeli government as "the most forthcoming government in history" for its peace offers, Ross agreed those offers were unreasonably met with violence. He further stated he understood that Israel feels its existence is threatened, something which was further supported by his description of Hizbollah's missiles amassed on Israel's northern frontier.
Still, the sense of "moral equivalency" between Israel and the Palestinians hung heavily in the air. Ross stated Israelis understand the need for the situation to change and can change if they have a viable partner. Ross pointed to the "new authentic Palestinian reform movement" as the key to this end. Pointing out that the Palestinian newspaper Al Hayat had openly run a column asking if Israeli tanks were really responsible for all the poverty and corruption in the PA, Ross stated that a viable Palestinian reform movement was emerging to replpace Arafat. The recent seige of the Mukata had rendered Arafat an even greater failure to his people despite enhancing him as a symbol to them of "Palestinian resistance". This concept of an "authentic" reform movement being the route to successful negotiations to the situation sounded good to the audience but lacked any comprehension or compassion for the real situation on the ground.While Ross negotiates, Israelis are blown up and maimed.
As the speech continued, Ross criticized PM Sharon as showing "violence is futile" and seemed to feel a dimunition of such "violence" would lead to a strenghtening of the reformers with whom serious negotiations could take place. And it was here that his speech, in a auditorium on an American university campus, no doubt the same as in a secure office at Washington, lost touch with reality.
Although Ross acknowledged over 600 Israelis had been murdered by Palestinian terrorism, his detached regard for this as only a detail as a part of negotiations completely ignored the situation on the ground for the average Israeli. The reform movement among the Palestinians he spoke so hopefully about has shown in the past that any renunciations against terrorism and violence might be controlled not because they are inherently wrong, but simply "unsuccessful" in meeting Palestinian goals. It almost seemd that as a professional negotiator Ross was more interested in having two sides to tell him what he wants to hear to conduct a successful negotaiton on paper, completely ignoring past history.
Even before Oslo the Palestinians have always said and still do today that any parts of Israel obtained by surrender or negotaitons from the Jewish State shall serve as a new Palestinian State from which the rest of Israel will be obtained later. Ross, by outlining and agreeing that Arafat had been offered a fantastic deal with Oslo, and that Abu Amar had actually hurt his own people because of it, seemd to think that reformers among the Palestinians opposed to Arafat's corruption for some reason would be equally open to a genuine peace with Israel. At best this is incredibly naive.
Nowhere during his speech did Ross touch on incitement in Palestinian schools and media, nor did he touch upon the fact that Palestinian security forces responsible for any workable peace are the same terrorist squads attacking Israelis on the ground every day. Palestinian reformers might make the day to day existence of the average Palestinian better by isolating Arafat with a new government and Prime Minister. But it is folly to think the fundamental goal, the diismantling of Israel will ever be forgotten. And to fault Sharon as being at fault for the violence for defending Israelis on the ground is reprehensible.
In fairness, Ross did disucss the demographics of the Arab birthrate and alluded to a one man one vote situation by 2029 leading to demise of the Jewish State.
As usual, he criticized the continual building of settlements in Judea and Samaria as being illogical to creating a lasting peace. Yet it is precisely because of the threatening sitaution that Israel needs to secure such settlements in her own national security interest no matter how much of a negotiating obstacle they may seem to be in the one on one negotiations between Ross and his Palestinian "reformers" he puts so much credibility in.
Ross lamented that neither side "listens". After critiquing Arafat's habit of lying about what he rejected at Camp David and asking simply "If you don't like the deal that was offered just say why, but don't lie and say you were offered something else", Ross seemd to think refomers "listen" better and might make Israelis do the same. Yes, the "new" Palestinians might listen at the negotiating table, but once they get what they want, the ultimate aim of dismantling Israel will still be there with the same
terrorist security forces to back it up. Is it any wonder that Israel doesn't "listen"?
friendly version of this article
Return to Contents
the Israel Resource
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
You can contact us on email@example.com.