On Checkpoints – a letter from a volunteer monitor to an angry soldier

Here are extended excerpts from a letter of reply from a Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch volunteer — these volunteers are all and exclusively eminently respectable adult Israeli women — to an angry soldier who objected to one of her monitoring reports:

“…from the point of view of a human being…it is impossible not to see the situation in Hebron in a comprehensive way: the centre of the city that has become a ghetto for thousands of its thousands of Palestinian residents (after over twenty thousand of them were forced to leave their homes), and has become the exclusive domain of the Jewish residents. The checkpoints that you guard are a part of that whole system, and there is nothing worse in all the Occupied Territories. There the army has become, nearly like the Palestinians, subject to the whims of a few hundred Jewish residents, of whom the vast majority are zealots, nationalists and racists. I heard their words more than once and I have read the words that they write. More than that: many of them, including small children, are also violent – sometimes very violent.

“These are facts – and not utterances that stem from my personal outlook. There is abundant evidence for these facts, and it is unlikely that you have not seen with your own eyes when you serve there and not read them in the newspapers and in other sources of information. Just recently (in the newspaper Haaretz, the weekly supplement 18 April 2008) the senior journalist Zvi Barel described in depth and in detail the sequence of events since the creation of the Jewish settlement, that very rapidly led to a situation in which the Israeli soldiers stationed in Hebron became servants at the beck and call of the settlers, which has led more than once to extensive humiliation and even abuse of soldiers. Barel’s article is based also on the writer’s personal experience: he was the deputy military governor of Hebron, no less! And he writes: ‘teeming Hebron became a ghost town under the protection of the army’. And he gives a very long series of precise examples of the way in which, since then to this very day, soldiers have been subject to the will of the settlers, and if they do not submit to them, then they are punished at their hands in various ways, and in the end they obey them: ‘the IDF’ he writes, ‘cannot take pride in the legacy of its battle with the settlers’. Those words were also told to me by many soldiers in Hebron – soldiers who only waited for a moment in which they could finally get away from that place that they see as accursed. And those facts have also been documented in writing in various places, in testimony of soldiers of various political views, not just people of the Left, not at all.

“And please, don’t tell me that you are defending my life. Soldiers like you who serve there did not defend me when I stood near the ‘House of Contention’ in Hebron, with one other woman from Machsom Watch, the two of us alone, mature women: we stood and watched, we did not say a word and we did not do a thing and we made no provocation. And suddenly eggs were thrown at us from the roof and the children that were there surrounded me and began – with the vocal encouragement of their parents – to kick me and to hurl a large ball at me. Four soldiers were standing there, two beside a checkpoint that was beside the house and two by the entrance to the house. I asked them to get my attackers away from me and to catch the egg-throwers that were standing on the roof. The soldiers sniggered, they didn’t move from where they were standing and they didn’t lift a finger. And regarding the eggs, they said: how do we know that it was not Palestinians who threw the eggs at you? Not long ago there was a much more serious scene with members of the German parliament, official guests of the government of Israel, whom the settlers abused and the army did not defend, and they were forced to flee from there. But those matters are so well known and documented, that it is unlikely that you do not know. And as one who serves there – maybe you were even one of those soldiers who did not defend those who were attacked? I ask you this question in all seriousness; not to provoke you.

“More than once the army claimed on such occasions that it does not have enough manpower to deal with the settlers: I have also heard that pretext with my own ears, because I have been to Hebron on many occasions. However, this army that is too frail to deal with kicking toddlers and their parents who incite them, this army saw fit to surround with about fifteen soldiers, a skinny boy of about fifteen [in June he will turn fifteen]. That is the incident that I documented, among others, and to which you replied [and why do you not respond about the blockaded house I described in my report?]. Maybe that boy threw stones at you or even rocks (afterwards the soldiers showed me some stones that they claimed had been thrown at them on the street: I did not see there a single rock, just small stones) – were so many armed soldiers necessary against a youth, a boy, whose hands were already cuffed and who was blindfolded? And don’t say that it was not fifteen soldiers who surrounded him: true, you were not summoned to the scene, you gathered from nearby streets. And you surrounded him. I saw that scene, and I also photographed it, and what I recorded in the report was correct in every detail. A few moments before that only three or four soldiers were standing at the checkpoint, and when the handcuffed boy was brought there many surrounded him. After a few moments they dispersed and the boy was taken away. Regarding the jeeps: there was only one jeep on the scene, and afterwards one more came along, and that’s the one that took the boy. Is it really all that important whether it was specially summoned or not? Two jeeps, many soldiers and one boy and one woman – that was the picture. You moved us aside and demanded that we stand on the other side of the barrier. True, we were angry at what we saw [we yelled; we did not curse], and I also wrote that, frankly and honestly. Believe me, that scene would be infuriating to anyone whose senses have not yet been dulled.

“Yes, I described you with precision: why don’t you try to describe yourself under those circumstances, you who did not respond to me when settler families attacked me, how you looked when you stood around a single boy and separated him from his aunt, who at any rate could not have rescued him from you. And maybe you can explain to me why you blindfolded that boy? Did you ask yourself why that humiliation was necessary? Were there military secrets to be seen there? Does that boy not see, every day, the checkpoint and you and the whole terrible environment to which his home has been converted for the sake of the few hundred Jews who settled there in the first place in complete violation of every law and afterwards compelled the governments of Israel to authorize their residence there and to send massive military forces to defend them? Military forces that have become more and more harsh the more depressing the conditions there have become. They are humiliating to the soldiers themselves, to put it mildly.

“And maybe it would even be worthwhile for you to put yourself just once in the place of that boy? And not only in Hebron, although that place, as has been said, is the worst of all. Put yourself in his place and in the place of his aunt and his father and many others to whom you serve in close proximity as a policeman according to laws that were not intended for policemen in a normal state. Have you asked yourself once how millions of civilians in the Territories have been living for decades now, behind enclosures and encirclement and roadblocks? And it is not a matter of one’s political perspective on the conflict: there is no other place in a democratic country in the world in which civilians have been living like that for such a long time, decades under occupation. There is no army in the world that has the right to fight that way against civilians for such a long time, which has become a permanent arrangement, not a temporary situation.

“It is not just and not wise, especially not wise: by no means will we be able to live like this in peace and security in the long run. Not only are you not defending my life, you are even endangering it with the actions that you are ordered to carry out against civilians, men, women and children – under the cover of ‘war on terror’, as if all of them were terrorists. You are endangering me and us with the hatred that you and your comrades are sowing in the neighbourhoods and houses every day and every night. Indeed with my own eyes I see again and again the actions that you carry out, and I am not exaggerating: the destruction that soldiers leave behind them in houses [I saw!], the humiliations at the checkpoints and on the streets and the highways [I saw and heard and read them!]. Have you once put yourself in the place of those people that you are supposedly defending me against? I have put myself in their place in my thoughts and I travel every week to see their situation in the villages and in the cities and I am well-received by them [as a Jew and an Israeli, not as someone who identifies with terror], and I do not need you to defend me at all when I’m there. In their houses they even take extraordinary care of me, according to the code of hospitality that is sacred to them. I fear you more than I fear them. Because the moment you or your comrades appear in some civilian area, for example at the gates of a school, and the trouble begins, then I am liable to be in danger. Believe me: these things I have seen with my own eyes, I am not spouting slogans to you. And if behind all this I have my own outlook, it is not a ‘leftist’ outlook, but the outlook that was bequeathed to me by my parents, who were persecuted in Europe, and it was they who taught me not to be silent when human rights are violated so; and I am not silent and I will not be silent.

“Against that background, of what importance is it why your rifles were slung over your shoulders and if all the rifles were pointed and if it is possible to hold rifles in a way different to the way you were holding them in front of the boy and his aunt? You simply have nothing to seek from them there in the middle of the city, at that asinine checkpoint, with all your weapons and communications devices. You have become heroes facing down women and old people and children – if once you look a little bit beyond the end of the barrel of your rifle, it is impossible that you will not see and feel that. Many soldiers have already gone off the rails because of that,

+In conclusion, here is the testimony of a soldier who served recently in Hebron and who evidently looked around him:

“ ‘If I stand at a checkpoint that prevents people from going to places that they clearly have to go to, that is to say, sometimes they cannot go between the grocery store and their home because I am standing there, it makes no difference how polite I am. I do not need to be cruel to them for it to be wrong. I can be the politest person and it will still not be OK, because from their point of view it is not that I am being nice to them – I am still not letting them go to their home – what’s the difference if I try to be polite? What’s the difference, if I am humiliating them at the same time? The checkpoint itself is a humiliation. As long as I fulfill my role according to the regulations, according to all the laws, doing something completely legal, I am still doing something that harms people, and harms them in a gratuitous way. I am guarding, or ensuring the existence, of 500 settlers at the expense of 15,000 people in a direct occupation in Area H2 and another 140,000-160,000 in Hebron around it. And it makes no difference how decent I try to be, it makes no difference how decent my commander tries to be, it just … it will not be OK. I will still be their enemy. There will still be a conflict between us, and sometimes when I’m nice to them that makes problems for me because then they have somebody to argue with and somebody to appeal to. But I have nothing to answer to them – they can’t pass because they can’t pass and that’s that! Because it is an order, and due to security considerations, as long as you want to guard those 500 people, that’s what you have to do. As long as we want to keep those guys in Hebron alive, and want to ensure that they can have normal lives, it will be necessary to destroy the routine of all the others. There is no other alternative. For the most part they are genuine security considerations. They are not contrived considerations – in order that they cannot shoot at them from above, we have to hold the hills above them. People live on those hills. We have to occupy people, we have to hold people, we have to harm those people sometimes, but as long as the government sticks to its decision that the settlement in Hebron must remain, even without gratuitous cruelty, all the cruelty will be there and it will make no difference if people are nice or not‘.”

IDF says it will conduct "field investigation" into Gaza killing of Reuters cameraman

The IDF has announced it will conduct a “field investigation” into the killing by an IDF tank shell filled with “flechettes” of a Reuters cameraman working in Gaza on 9 April.

Actually, what the announcement says is that it will “look into the claims regarding the circumstances“.

Here’s the full text:
Following the fighting in the Gaza Strip on April 16th, 2008, the IDF is conducting a field investigation to look into the claims regarding the circumstances of the death of a Reuters cameraman. The IDF similarly investigates every claim regarding uninvolved civilians hurt in fighting areas. In accordance with IDF policy, the field investigation will be reviewed by the Military Advocate General. The IDF wishes to emphasize that unlike terrorist organizations, not only does not it deliberately target uninvolved civilians, it also uses means to avoid such incidents. Reports claiming the opposite are false and misleading“.

UPDATE: AP reported on 21 April that “The announcement comes after New York-based group Human Rights Watch said its own investigation found evidence that the tank crew fired either recklessly or deliberately. ‘Israeli soldiers did not make sure they were aiming at a military target before firing, and there is evidence suggesting they actually targeted the journalists’, said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch … Cameraman Fadel Shana, 23, was killed in Gaza on Wednesday, the bloodiest day of fighting between Israeli troops and Gaza militants in a month. J ust before his death, Shana was filming an Israeli tank in the distance, and his final footage shows the tank firing a shell in his direction. Palestinian medics said two teens wounded in Wednesday’s shelling died of their wounds Sunday, bring the total number of Palestinians killed in the shelling to six. In all, 23 Palestinians were killed that day”. The full AP report can be read here .

Calls mount for IDF accounting of killing of Reuters cameraman in Gaza

This photo ran in the NY Times — I noticed it thanks to Angry Arab:

photo by Mohammed Abed - AFP - Getty

NYT photo caption: “Wounded Palestinians [n.b. – these are children] lay near the car of Fadel Shana, a cameraman for Reuters who died in a missile attack on Wednesday in Gaza”. According to Reuters, they also died.

UPDATE: AP says that “The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem released pictures that it said showed the journalist was killed by a flechette shell, which spews hundreds of darts. The munition is not banned under international law, but the group said it shouldn’t be used in a crowded area like Gaza. The military said it would not discuss munitions it uses, but insisted all are legal. In response to a call for an investigation by the Foreign Press Association, the military said, ‘At the moment, there is no investigation going on’.” This story can be read in full here .

 

Reuters has just reported that “A medical examination showed on Thursday that metal darts from an Israeli tank shell that explodes in the air caused the death of a Reuters cameraman killed a day earlier in the Gaza Strip, doctors said. X-rays displayed by physicians who examined the body of Fadel Shana in Gaza’s Shifa hospital showed several of the controversial weapons, known as flechettes, embedded in the 23-year-old Palestinian’s chest and legs. Several of the 3 cm (1 inch)-long darts were also found in Shana’s flak jacket, emblazoned with a fluorescent ‘Press‘ sign, and in his vehicle, an unarmored sport utility vehicle bearing ‘TV‘ and ‘Press‘ markings … Shana was covering events in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip for Reuters on a day of intense violence when 16 other Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers were also killed. Abu Mizyed (Reuters soundman Wafa Abu Mizyed, who was wounded in the wrist by one of the darts) said Shana had stopped along a roadside and placed his camera on a tripod to film “wide shots” of an area near the scene of an Israeli air strike. An Israeli tank, Abu Mizyed said, was about a kilometer (half-mile) away. ‘We believe that an Israeli tank fired possibly two missiles that were full of small metal darts in the direction of the crew and the first of these killed Fadel and two other people and the second destroyed our car’, Reuters bureau chief Alastair Macdonald told a news conference. Macdonald said the Israeli army ‘told us that they can’t confirm that a tank fired at that time, in that place. But they expressed their regrets. They have said that they do not target journalists and they have said that they hope to be able to cooperate with us in investigating the incident in the interest of improving security for journalists’, he added … David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters News, said the evidence from the medical examination ‘underlines the importance of a swift, honest and impartial investigation by the Israel Defense Forces and by the government. The markings on Fadel Shana’s vehicle showed clearly and unambiguously that he was a professional journalist doing his duty. We and the military must work together urgently to understand why this tragedy took place and how similar incidents can be avoided in the future’, Schlesinger added. Asked about the information that an Israeli flechette shell had killed Shana, an Israeli military spokeswoman said: ‘The Israel Defence Forces do not, as a rule, comment on the weapons they use. But its weapons are legal under international law. Flechettes are legal under international law and a petition filed in the (Israeli) Supreme Court against their use was rejected’, she added, referring to a case in 2003. Video from Shana’s camera showed the tank opening fire. Two seconds after the shot raises dust around its gun, the tape goes blank — seemingly at the moment Shana was hit. A frame-by-frame examination of the tape shows the shell exploding in the air and dark shapes shooting out from it. Describing Shana’s last moments, Abu Mizyed said he was moving away a group of children who were disturbing the cameraman when he heard an explosion behind him. Turning around, he saw Shana and two youngsters — who also died — lying in pools of blood“… This Reuters report can be read in full here .

The Associated Press reported that “Reuters released the final video taken by Shana in the seconds before his death. The footage shows a tank on a distant hilltop opening fire. A tank shell is seen flying toward the camera followed by a large explosion before the screen goes black. Pictures taken by colleagues after the attack showed his jeep on fire and Shana’s body lying next to it along with several other bodies strewn along the road. Shana’s jeep was marked ‘Press’ and witnesses said the cameraman was wearing an identifying flak jacket. Shana was killed near the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza. He had been in the area to film the aftermath of a deadly Israeli airstrike that killed 12 Palestinians, including five children aged 12-15, according to medical officials … The Israeli military said it expressed ‘sorrow’ for his death but did not accept responsibility, saying only it was investigating”. This AP report can be seen in full here .

The Foreign Press Association in Israel opened its annual general meeting in Jerusalem this morning with a long moment of silence in Shana’s memory. After the meeting, the incoming and outgoing boards issued this statement: “The FPA wishes to express its profound concern over the lack of a clear explanation from the IDF over the killing of Reuters cameraman Fadal Shana in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday. The FPA urges the IDF to show greater urgency in this investigation and in addressing the concerns arising from Fadal’s tragic death. Video footage shot by Fadal himself shows that he was hit by a tank shell. At the time, Fadal was not in an area where any fighters were present. He and his vehicle had clear markings indicating he was a member of the press. He was at least one and a half kilometers from the tank from which the shell that killed him was fired. A full accounting of this occurrence from the IDF is necessary and urgent“.

What quiet? Israel kills four Islamic Jihad men in West Bank, Qassam fire resumes against Sderot

Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Hamas’ former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh have now called for an Israeli cease-fire both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

It was a rare convergence of views.

Each leader made his call separately. But it may come too late.

In the village of Seida this morning, near the West Bank city of Tulkarem, several Israeli military vehicles and a bulldozer surrounded the home of one Mahmoud Hamad. Apparently, according to an account published by the Ma’an News Agency, the IDF were after Salih Karkur, who was visiting Hamad.

Karkur made his last stand on the roof, firing on the assembled Israeli vehicles as the bulldozer demolished the house.

Salih Karkur killed in Seida by IDF 12 March 2008

Ma’an reported this: “Eyewitnesses told Ma’an’s reporter that they saw Karkur on the roof of the house shooting at the Israeli troops before the Israeli bulldozer began to demolish the building. Ma’an’s reporter watched the demolition from a nearby building. He said Karkur’s body fell to the ground when the roof of the house collapsed. Israeli soldiers then shot again at Karkur’s limp body, apparently to make certain he was dead … According to the wife of the house’s owner, Umm Abdullah, Karkur had come to visit them in the morning. Shortly following Karkur’s arrival, Israeli forces besieged the house and ordered the residents into the street before they chained Umm Abdullah’s husband and abducted him. She added that the Red Cross and the Palestinian Authority offered to negotiate with Karkur for his surrender in order to avoid the destruction of the house, but the Israeli troops rejected the offer … Sources in the Al-Quds Brigades said the deceased was an escort of a prominent leader of the group, Khalid Abu Sari, who was killed in Jenin months ago. The source said he also participated in the battle at Al-Ein refugee camp in Nablus in September in which an Israeli soldier was killed. The group threatened to retaliate soon for the assassination of Karkur, who they said was one of their leaders. Karkur was from the nearby town of Attil. He served seven years in Israeli jails”. This Ma’an News Agency report is posted here .

Tonight, IDF and Israeli Border Police Special Forces mounted a joint raid into Bethlehem, where they killed four men sitting in a small red car parked in front of a bakery near the Deheishe refugee camp in Bethlehem. One of those killed, Mohammad Shahada, 45 years old, was reportedly the head of Islamic Jihad in Bethlehem. All of those killed were senior members (or “wanted terrorists”, as the IDF statement put it) in Islamic Jihad.

It was Mohammad Shahada’s house that was demolished in Bethlehem last Thursday night by IDF and Israeli bulldozers within hours of the yeshiva killing.

The IDF spokesperson’s information listed five operations that were carried out between 2000 and 2002 that are blamed on Shahada. It is not clear why Israeli Forces waited until 2008 to try to locate Shahada.

The IDF announcement also claimed that “Mohammad Shahada and the Islamic Jihad in Bethlehem were in direct contact with the Islamic Jihad leadership in Syria from which they received operational orders”.

Ma’an News Agency reported that: “Veteran activists in the armed Palestinian resistance movement, Shahada and his comrades had evaded the forces of the Israeli occupation for years. On Wednesday the four activists were in Bethlehem meeting with other Fatah activists in preparation for Fatah’s sixth movement conference. The activists visited the offices of Ma’an News Agency earlier on Wednesday, saying: ‘The Israeli occupation doesn’t want to arrest us. Really, they want to assassinate us’ … Ma’an’s chief editor, Nasser Lahham, spoke with Shahada at Bethlehem’s Christmas Eve celebrations on Manger Square last December. Shahada was smiling on Christmas Eve, radiating confidence: ‘The Palestinian people are capable of raising the flag of liberty and completing their mission. Israel has to realize that military occupation of Palestine does not solve its problems, either now or in the future’.” The full report can be read here .

Earlier in the day, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) fired two rockets from Gaza towards the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon.

Around midnight, somebody in Gaza fired at least half a dozen “projectiles” at the Israeli town of Sderot.

West Bank General Closure announced — 12 hours after going into effect

As a result of the killing at one of Jerusalem’s most famous yeshivas — one with a very partiuclar national/religious orientation — the Israeli Defense Forces announced a General Closure of the West Bank [referred to as Judea and Samaria] and the Gaza Strip on Friday.

The announcement was circulated by email over 12 hours after the General Closure went into effect.

The reference to Gaza seems to me to be unusual — it has not been mentioned in these annoucements in recent months, probably to reinforce the Israeli position that “Gaza is no longer occupied”, and thus has a different status than the West Bank does.

In practical terms, it would mean that no humanitarian deliveries would be made today into Gaza.

The General Closure will be lifted, according to the IDF announcment, “according to security assessments”.

That means it could last a long while.  Or, it could end tomorrow night (but, the announcement will not be distributed until mid-day on Sunday, probably.

The text of the announcement reads: “Following a decision made by the Minister of Defense and according to security assessments, a general closure will be implemented in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The closure began today, Friday, March 7th at 1:00am and will be lifted according to security assessments. During the weekend, the passage into Israel of those in need of humanitarian or medical aid as well as other specific incidents will be authorized by the District Coordination and Liaison offices”.

Israeli paper says UNIFIL wants mandate change so it can fight Hizbullah!

You could get the impression these days that, around the world, UN Peacekeepers are champing at the bit, just looking for a fight!

And if the Israeli Defense Forces couldn’t trounce Hamas, how do these various units of UN Peacekeepers (including from Qatar) think they could do so?

The Jerusalem Post has reported that “UNIFIL would like a more aggressive mandate for its forces to engage Hizbullah on their own, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
After last summer’s war in Lebanon and the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL was beefed up from 2,000 troops to more than 12,000 and received a mandate stipulating that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) be present during any incident involving Hizbullah in southern Lebanon. According to the mandate’s rules of engagement, UNIFIL soldiers are not allowed to engage Hizbullah guerrillas independently. They must first contact the LAF and wait for their arrival and decision whether they request UNIFIL assistance. ‘There is a feeling of frustration within UNIFIL that under the current rules of engagement they are not free to do their job, which is to prevent Hizbullah rearmament in southern Lebanon’, an Israeli defense official told the Post. UNIFIL, commanded by Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano of Italy, cannot make changes to the rules of engagement on its own. The decision needs to be made by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, in conjunction with countries that contribute forces to UNIFIL. UNIFIL is considering rules of engagement that would allow its forces to engage Hizbullah if the LAF does not arrive after being alerted to an incident within a specified, and as yet undetermined, length of time. According to Israeli officials, UNIFIL sometimes waits a long time before the LAF arrives at the scene of an incident. ‘This would certainly be in Israel’s best interest’, a source in IDF Northern Command said. ‘With more aggressive rules of engagement, UNIFIL would be able to more effectively carry out its role at preventing Hizbullah from rearming’. Sources in Northern Command said they have been satisfied with UNIFIL’s performance and believed more could be done within the framework of the current rules of engagement. The sources said OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Gadi Eizenkot and Graziano had a good relationship. When the two met last week, they reportedly reminisced about the year they spent together at the US College of Military and Security Studies. A senior government official who deals with the UN said he did not know of any move by UNIFIL to alter its rules of engagement. The official said UNIFIL has ‘enough tools to operate within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, both south and north of the Litani’.
Meanwhile Thursday, the Turkish press reported that Ankara was bidding to take over command of the UNIFIL maritime force when Germany’s term ends in July.
A local Turkey expert could not confirm the reports, but did say such a move would make sense from a Turkish point of view. According to the source, such a mandate would allow Turkey to raise its profile in the Middle East, something it has been trying to do for some time, at only minimal risk. In addition, the source said, the Turkish and Israeli navies had a good working relationship. The source said a decision to take over the maritime command likely would face little opposition inside Turkey for a number of reasons: first, because it would not be considered dangerous, and second because it would not entail moving Turkish forces from the southern border with Iraq.
Turkey has 87 engineers in the multinational force, and there was some internal opposition to sending troops to the force because of the feeling that the Turkish military should concentrate on the volatile situation on its southern border with Iraq. The Turkish navy, by contrast, is not involved in the situation on that landlocked border.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173967633&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull