Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

After 3 years, accusations against Gaza World Vision head remain unproven

Mohammed Halabi, arrested in 2016 by Israel on accusations of diverting charity funds to Hamas, is still behind bars. Dozens of court hearings later, the state has yet to present evidence against him.

By Antony Loewenstein

“I’ve never heard of any case like this in Israel before,” says Maher Hanna. “Even in the [nuclear whistle-blower] Mordechai Vanunu case, his lawyer had more access to their client than I do.”

Hanna is the attorney representing Palestinian prisoner Mohammed Halabi, a World Vision manager born in a Gaza refugee camp who three years ago was accused by Israel of funneling around $43 million from the Christian charity to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Since 2016, Israel has not provided any evidence to Halabi or World Vision to prove its case, and yet Halabi’s trial continues in an Israeli court, unresolved and with no end in sight. His lawyer tells me that he has no idea if Halabi will remain in a remote prison near Be’er Sheva without being convicted for many more years.

“This case is unprecedented in the Israeli legal system,” Hanna says. “Israel knows that Halabi is innocent. Some Israeli officials told me that.” Nonetheless, Hanna acknowledges that the panel of three judges could find his client guilty.

+972 Magazine has spent months investigating the Halabi case, examining the origins of the allegations, the reasons behind them, and speaking to key players in the story. The picture that emerges from many pages of internal World Vision documents, rarely heard details of the court case, and a correspondence with Halabi himself, is more than just that of an innocent Palestinian being tortured, mistreated and pressured to capitulate to Israeli demands; it also raises uncomfortable questions for many in the global and Israeli media who willingly accept Israeli government claims about Palestinians — even when there is no supporting evidence.

When the allegations against Halabi first surfaced in 2016, a senior official with the Shin Bet told journalists that Halabi had been recruited by Hamas in 2005 and instructed to join World Vision. After Halabi became head of World Vision in Gaza in 2010, the Israeli official claimed that he had eventually transferred around 60 percent of the organization’s annual budget in Gaza to Hamas. The allegedly stolen money had been spent on digging cross-border tunnels for Hamas militants to enter Israel, building a Hamas military base,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

PODCAST: The other two-state solution

The two-state solution may be dead but that doesn’t mean the dream of a Palestinian state is too. The +972 Podcast takes a deep dive into confederation.

Podcast thumbnail 1

Listen here: iTunes/Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify



Is the two-state solution really dead? Who knows if it ever will be. But an equitable one-state solution isn’t a given, and there are other models out there for creating a Palestinian state.

Confederation keeps the basic idea of two states but without separation between them. Borders are open and meant to facilitate movement instead of hinder it. Palestinians and Israelis alike can live anywhere between the river and the sea. But both peoples have their own government and get to exercise their right to national self-determination.

Dr. Dahlia Scheindlin joins The +972 Podcast to talk about how the plan addresses Palestinian refugees, why physically splitting Jerusalem is a horrible idea, and to discuss other models of confederation and what we can learn from them.

Subscribe here: iTunes/Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify

View article: AAA
Share article

The brewing war to succeed Mahmoud Abbas

The jockeying for the post-Abbas leadership is taking shape in a moment of political, economic, and internal crisis for the beleaguered Palestinian government. 

By Daoud Kuttab

It is rare in Palestinian politics that a president follows a prime minister. This is what happened this week, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas echoed the words of his prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, who in an interview with the New York Times last week warned of a “hot summer.”

Abbas, who has been single-handedly opposed to any changes in security coordination with Israel, all of a sudden joined Shtayyeh’s chorus line, predicting “a difficult July and August,” referring to possible layoffs of members of the Palestinian security forces if the Palestinian government’s current financial troubles are not solved by the end of the summer.

The oft-repeated justifications for Abbas’ reluctance to make changes to security coordination with Israel include the preservation of the Palestinian government — as well as self-protection. But the fact that the prime minister, who is a member of Abbas’ own Fatah movement, was ahead of him on the issue forced Abbas to take to Twitter and state that, indeed, he would lay off security personnel in order to reduce the cost of governing.

This is also meant as a message to the Israelis and the Americans, that the next few months might witness a violent escalation in the occupied territories. Gunfire broke out between Palestinian forces and the Israeli army deep in the city of Nablus Tuesday morning, which Israel is forbidden to enter — at least not without pre-coordination with its Palestinian counterparts. The message was clear: Palestinians will no longer accept Israeli incursions.

The Palestinians should not address their message to the army, however. Israeli military officials are said to be advising the political establishment to ease up on Palestinians, so as to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian government.

Abbas — who holds the position of president, chairman of the PLO, and commander in chief of the security forces — has the last word regarding Palestinian security. But he is also bound by Article 22 of the 2005 amended Basic Palestinian Law, which requires the Palestinian government to provide for prisoners and families of martyrs, many of whom were killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers.


Budget allocations to the security services in Palestine’s 2014 general budget amounted to 28 percent,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

‘To sing is not a right in the Gaza Strip’

With mounting social and political restrictions under Hamas rule, musicians are struggling to develop their music careers in the strip. Many seek to leave in search of opportunities elsewhere.

By Hind Khoudary

GAZA CITY — Abed Nasser, the owner of Cedar restaurant in Gaza City, broke the news to his customers in a Facebook post: the highly-anticipated music night scheduled for later that Ramadan evening had to be cancelled due to harassment and interference by the Hamas government.

According to Nasser, the police sought to prevent mixed attendance. They ordered him not to let men participate, except if they were part of a family taking part in the event. Nasser was asked to report to the police’s intelligence branch in Gaza, but he refused.

Music is increasingly becoming a way for young Gazans to channel stress and trauma — Palestinians in Gaza have had to endure violence and human rights abuses for decades, particularly since Israel imposed a blockade on the strip in 2007. But with mounting social, political, and religious restrictions under Hamas rule, opportunities for musicians are limited, as the government prevents groups and businesses that give performers a stage from doing so.

Artists who want to perform or venues that intend to host cultural events must first secure a permit. The process involves contacting at least four different authorities: the Tourism Ministry, the Public Security Ministry, the General Investigations Unit, which, among other things, acts as the public morality police, and the Abbas police station. Permits are issued depending on security and social considerations. Several businesses that have been subjected to such restrictions were contacted for this article, but refused to be interviewed out of fear of government intimidation.

Hamada Naserallah, a professional singer and law school graduate, said Hamas has stopped him from performing in Gaza at least 50 times. “To sing is not a right in the Gaza Strip,” said Naserallah, who performs with Sol Band, a Palestinian music group named after the fifth note of the musical scale. The eight-member troupe plays both modern and traditional Arabic music. “Suppression, humiliation, banning parties, controlling freedom — I can’t freely sing as any other singer on this planet,” added Naserallah.

Following a 2016 concert at Red Crescent Hall, police banned Sol Band from playing for two years, because women and girls in the audience were clapping and singing along with Naserallah, he said. Nowadays, a police...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Stepping inside the shoes of occupation deniers

Does watching footage of human rights abuses change the way people think about the occupation? A new film challenges us to put ourselves in the shoes of our political rivals in order to change their minds.

By Tom Pessah

Conversations across political worldviews are difficult. If we feel someone sees what is most fundamental to us entirely differently, how can we engage them respectfully? Ra’anan Alexandrowicz’s groundbreaking new documentary “The Viewing Booth” provides us with a deeper look into the contradictory ways people interpret images of human rights abuses, and offers insights into how we might bridge those divides.

Alexandrowicz, an Israeli filmmaker who previously made “The Law in These Parts,” set up a lab at the American university where he studies and invited student volunteers to watch short films depicting the occupation — some filmed by Palestinians for Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, and others made by settlers or soldiers. The lab includes cameras that film the students as they watch the films, verbalizing their reactions and discussing them with the filmmaker.

“The Viewing Booth” focuses on one such student, Maia Levy, an American Jew born to Israeli parents. Throughout the film, she is seen watching several of the videos and then discussing them with Alexandrowicz. Six months later, Alexandrowicz shows her the footage of their previous discussions and reflects on it with her. While the procedure may seem complicated, the questions it raises are simple and fundamental: why do we react to images the way we do? If those who document this reality want to change our minds, at what point do they succeed?

For Alexandrowicz, Levy is an ideal viewer. She doesn’t already share his views, which means his film can potentially change them, and she is self-reflective and open-minded to an extent. Levy had already seen similar videos in an anthropology class and was initially shocked, but then she spoke with her Israeli mother who told her B’Tselem videos are usually staged and lack credibility.

To borrow a phrase from French social scientist Bruno Latour, this is a film that plays “chicken” — it comes close enough to placing the viewer within Levy’s shoes, as someone who tries to keep intact her suspicion toward the Palestinian testimonies, yet never crosses the line to doubt the testimonies themselves. This may seem strange: why would Alexandrowicz, a committed anti-occupation activist, allow himself to be so empathic to someone whose reactions seem, at...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The right wing in Israel is in a deep crisis

Snap elections just weeks after Israelis went the polls are the result of a rivalry between Liberman and Netanyahu, but that’s just part of the story. The right is immersed in a crisis of identity, leadership, and politics.

By Meron Rapoport

What happened to Avigdor Liberman? Why did he insist on cutting short what will become the shortest Knesset term in Israeli history? Was it his deep personal hatred for Netanyahu or was he simply settling a score? Was it an opportunity to build himself up politically before disappearing alongside his small, sectorial party?

Amid all the questions remains a point that has gone largely undiscussed: Liberman’s success at thwarting Netanyahu reflects a deep crisis among the Israeli right. It is a complex crisis that can be broken down into three parts: the divide between ultra-Orthodox and secular right-wingers; a crisis of leadership; and a political crisis regarding the future vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Building a secular right-wing bloc

Let’s begin with the confrontation between Liberman and the ultra-Orthodox parties. Liberman has accused the prime minister of “giving in to the Haredim,” particularly on the issue of exempting ultra-Orthodox men from mandatory military conscription. On its face, it is difficult to understand why Liberman would care so much about ultra-Orthodox service in the army; he himself has sat alongside and at times allied himself with the ultra-Orthodox parties. So what has changed?

The answer lies in the results of the last elections. The two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, increased their electoral strength to 16 Knesset seats. Their power inside the right-wing bloc grew from one-fifth in the previous Knesset (13 out of 67 seats) to nearly a quarter (16 out of 65 seats). But this is only part of how the right is becoming more religious.

In the last Knesset, Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party was seen as relatively moderate when it came to religious issues. But the differences between the religious moderates and the ultra-Orthodox parties have narrowed: from the treatment of the LGTBQ community to growing calls for gender segregation inside the IDF. The six seats won by the Union of Right-Wing Parties last elections means that 22 Knesset seats — one-third of the right-wing bloc — belong to religious parties.

Meanwhile, Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu is a sectorial party made up of mostly Israelis from the former Soviet Union. Most of its voters are older, secular, and in agreement with...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

+972 Magazine is seeking an Editor-in-Chief

+972 Magazine logo thumb

About Us

+972 Magazine an independent online magazine that publishes on-the-ground reporting, investigative and in-depth features, unique analysis, and commentary from Israel-Palestine. The site is committed to professional journalistic standards, democratic values, human rights, resisting the occupation, and freedom of information.

We do not represent nor are we aligned with any other organization, political party, or outside agenda. +972 Magazine is published by the non-profit organization, “972—Advancement of Citizen Journalism,” (972-ACJ) which is also the direct employer of +972 Magazine’s staff.

Job Description

The editor-in-chief leads and manages a small team of editors and freelance writers in running +972 Magazine in all of its activities and operations. The editor-in-chief is responsible for all journalistic work done by and for the site, for setting its editorial agenda within the site’s mandate, and all publishing and promotional activities.

The editor-in-chief reports to the executive-director of “972—Advancement of Citizen Journalism” in all matters except for editorial decision-making.

The position requires: an open-minded and creative approach to journalism and storytelling; a willingness to confront popular narratives; creative and strategic thinking; and a commitment to the communities in Israel-Palestine working to advance a progressive agenda and end the occupation.

The editor-in-chief position is a unique opportunity to help shape the conversation on Israel-Palestine and lead one of the more exciting projects in the human/civil rights arena at a pivotal moment.


  • At least five years experience working in journalism, including at least two years in an editing position
  • Management experience
  • Strong familiarity with Israeli and Palestinian society, politics, activist movements, human rights groups
  • Familiarity with progressive movements around the world, particularly anti-occupation groups
  • Cultural literacy in English-speaking and foreign audiences and communities
  • Experience commissioning reporting and analysis, ideally in Israel-Palestine
  • Familiarity with trends in digital media and technology
  • A commitment to the basic values of the site: democracy, opposing the occupation, and freedom of information and the press.
  • A working understanding of the legal climate for journalists and publishers in Israel and Palestine and an ability to identify legal risks
  • Cultural and political sensitivity to the various communities and narratives in Israel-Palestine
  • Strong, proven writing and editing skills and...
Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

PODCAST: Being Palestinian during Israeli Pride Week

For many queer Palestinians in Israel, celebrating their gender identities while standing up for Palestinian rights is a balancing act — especially during Pride Week.

Every year, tens of thousands of tourists descend on Tel Aviv in mid-June for the annual Pride Week festivities, which celebrate Israel’s LGTBQ community with all-night parties, concerts, and a giant march across the city center.

For LGBTQ Palestinians living in Israel, however, Pride Week is far more complicated. For many, participating in Pride means actively taking part in Israel’s “pinkwashing” attempts by portraying itself to the world as a pluralistic safe haven for queer people to cover up its human rights violations against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israel likes to celebrate how liberal it is while violating the basic human rights of Palestinians, says journalist Zizo Abul Hawa, a gay Palestinian living in Tel Aviv. “You cannot just go around showing off your human rights while taking basic human rights from millions of people just half an hour from Tel Aviv.”

Caught in between wanting to celebrate their sexual and gender identities on the one hand and the Palestinian struggle on the other, Pride Week brings into focus the balancing act that queer Palestinians often face.

Listen here: iTunes/Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify


“My LGBT identity is a very big part of my identity, but right now for the Palestinian people… basic human rights is more important than getting married, or equality, or surrogacy for gay couples,” says Abul Hawa.

“I know a lot of gay Palestinians who wait for pride like a child waits for Christmas,” says Abul Hawa, “and I can understand that, I can understand putting your political agenda aside just to enjoy life a little bit.” He adds: “It can be a little bit hypocritical, taking part of it, but things are complicated, and you get, sometimes, to be hypocritical.”

Subscribe to The +972 PodcastiTunes/Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify

View article: AAA
Share article

A century later, Trump’s deal for Palestine is no better than Britain’s

The British left Palestine in 1948 with their tail between their legs, having laid the groundwork for 100 years of conflict. With people like Trump and Kushner leading the way, we should expect nothing better for our own century.

By Jonathan Adler

The White House revealed last weekend that the “Deal of the Century,” the administration’s plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promote peace in the Middle East, will be crafted by and for businessmen.

Jared Kushner, a real-estate mogul and son-in-law and senior advisor to President Trump, will launch the plan by convening an “economic workshop” in Bahrain at the end of June. There Arab finance ministers and international businessmen will discuss how to “encourage investing capital” in the West Bank and Gaza through infrastructure and industrial development.

Over the past months, many have speculated about what this investment might look like. Journalist Vicky Ward suggests that the deal will include a Saudi-Gaza oil pipeline, complete with refineries, desalination plants, and a shipping terminal in Gaza. Rumors have circulated of a trans-desert railway that will connect Baghdad to Haifa. And Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has reportedly offered the Palestinian Authority a lofty sum of $10 billion if they accept Trump’s deal and relinquish their claim to a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

The political component of the deal will be unveiled only after the economic workshop. It will not, however, include an independent Palestinian state. In a recent interview with Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Kushner dismissed Palestinian statehood as a matter of semantics: “If you say ‘two states,’ it means one thing to the Israelis, it means one thing to Palestinians,” he remarked. “‘Let’s just not say it.’” This position is a non-starter for the Palestinian Authority, whose presence in the upcoming workshop is not even guaranteed.


Satloff argues that we should “view Kushner and his colleagues as developers applying to the Middle East lessons from the New York real estate market than as diplomats trying to solve a thorny, long-standing international dispute.” But this approach is nothing new. In fact, Kushner is following a long tradition of deal-making in the Middle East that, by prioritizing economic development and avoiding or delaying political solutions, has proved to be disastrous for...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israeli army sentences conscientious objector to 30 days behind bars

Roman Levin will serve another 30 days in military prison for refusing to continue his military service due to his opposition to the occupation.

By +972 Magazine

An IDF disciplinary body sentenced Israeli conscientious objector Roman Levin to 30 days in military prison last week for his refusal to continue serving in the military.

Upon completing his current sentence, he will have served a total of 80 days behind bars. Military conscription is mandatory for most Jewish Israelis.

Levin, 19, from the city of Bat Yam just south of Tel Aviv, immigrated to Israel with a few members of his family from Ukraine when he was 3 years old. He initially believed his service would contribute to society and fulfill his duties as a citizen.

“I refuse to continue my military service,” Levin said. “My refusal is an act of protest against an occupation that has lasted more than 50 years and of solidarity with the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza.”

This is the fourth time Levin has been sentenced for refusing to serve in the army. He was previously jailed twice after a year and a half of service in the IDF as a truck driver. He is being supported by Mesarvot — Refusing to Serve the Occupation, a grassroots network that brings together individuals and groups who refuse to enlist in the IDF in protest at the occupation.

Prior to his imprisonment, Levin published a statement in which he described how his service in the occupied territories affected his political outlook: “When I was recruited, I thought the army serves the interests of Israeli citizens, but after serving in the territories I understood that the army’s actions don’t serve my interests or the interests of workers in Israel, especially after the continued murder of demonstrators at the Gaza fence. The Nation-State Law strengthened that understanding to me. I came to the conclusion that you can’t hold both ends of the rope – to resist occupation, racism and the capitalist order, while serving in a military that preserves these things.”

View article: AAA
Share article

For Israelis the Nakba is a footnote. For Palestinians it's the heart of the conflict

Israelis tend to view the expulsions of the 1948 war as a small, local affair that was quite restrained compared to the Nazi genocide. For Palestinians, it is an ongoing dispossession.

By Sam Freed

To large portions of the Jewish Israeli public, the Nakba was small event — an historical side note. To most Palestinians, on the other hand, it is a huge, exceptionally brutal, and vastly important part of their history. In order to understand why there is such a vast disparity in the way the Nakba is perceived by Israelis and Palestinians, despite very little contention as to the objective size of the event — 700,000 people were deported and dispossessed, which today we would call ethnic cleansing — one must look back several hundred years.

Nothing motivates wars like ideas on paper. The printing press was invented in the mid 1400s in Germany. Rebellions against the Catholic Church were not infrequent during that period, but after the printing press was available such rebellions spread much faster. The most prominent of those was the Protestant Reformation, which led to centuries of internal religious and ideological wars in Europe, ending only in 1945. The number of victims is estimated at around 100 million.

Meanwhile in the Ottoman Empire the situation was quite different. Most of its military efforts were in the Balkans, directed towards Catholic Austria. In 1485, Sultan Bayzid II banned the printing press because the Arabic letters of the Qu’ran were considered too sacred to be used mechanically. The result was 500 years of relative peace in the Muslim world – quite a contrast to the constant bloodletting of religious wars in Europe.

The Ottomans controlled the Middle East by granting the local population maximal self-government. This included having a mukhtar (chief) run each village according to its own traditions. The result was that the Ottomans were able to control the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River with only a few hundred soldiers. While in Europe tens of millions were being killed in Christian-on-Christian violence, the first wars amongst Muslims involving over one million deaths happened quite recently: the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1970 and the Iran-Iraq War in 1979.


The Zionist leadership that created Israel was virtually entirely of European origin. In the first half of the 20th century, the numbers of deportees...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The right's plan to get rid of Israel's High Court

The far right wants to defang Israel’s highest court to fulfill its annexationist dreams. Netanyahu wants to overpower it to ensure he remains on the throne. For Palestinians, annexation has long been a fact on the ground. 

By Meron Rapoport

The attacks on Israel’s High Court by the right would not have gained traction without Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal support. These include an attempt to pass a bill that would not only allow the Knesset to re-legislate laws struck down by the judiciary, but also prevent the High Court from intervening in administrative decisions by the government, the ministers, and the Knesset. Netanyahu is hoping to prevent judicial review over any number of laws that would seek to shield him from prosecution over the various corruption scandals in which he is embroiled.

The right speaks openly about the need to broadly “govern,” as well as the need to dismantle the “dictatorship of the High Court” in order to “give power back to the people.” But nowhere is this so-called “governance” more relevant than the area over which Israel has been trying to hide its rule for 52 years: the occupied territories.

The great paradox

Two of the laws Netanyahu singled out as reasons for passing a “court override bill” are directly related to the occupied territories: a bill calling for the death penalty for convicted Palestinian killers of Israeli civilians and soldiers, and another bill that would allow Israel to deport the families of those Palestinians. It is clear why Bezalel Smotrich of the United Right party made the override bill a central condition of the current coalition negotiations with the prime minister. The Regularization Law, which retroactively legalizes West Bank outposts deemed illegal by Israeli law and will likely be struck down by the High Court, is a prime example of the kind of laws Smotrich wants to enshrine without the threat of judicial oversight.

Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din has recorded a few dozen “annexation laws” that are already on the docket for the upcoming Knesset, some of which legislate the annexation parts or the entirety of the West Bank, legalize the theft of Palestinian land, or simply blur the Green Line. The moment the threat of the High Court’s oversight disappears, the sky is the limit for Smotrich and the rest of the Israeli far right.

Nearly every single article in Smotrich’s so-called “Decisive Plan” — which includes annexing the West Bank without granting Palestinians equal civil rights, while incentivizing them to leave the country —...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

By going vegan, Israelis can avoid talking about human rights

By choosing an ‘easier’ cause to fight for, some Israelis have decided they can have it all. By showing compassion to animals and their suffering, we can live with the continued blindness to the pain of the humans among us.

By Rachel Shenhav-Goldberg

Israelis have taken to vegetarianism and veganism perhaps more than any country in the developed world. This is a good thing; if you measure suffering in years and number of casualties, it is valid to say that animals are the main victims of history.

I believe Israeli vegans genuinely do care for animals. There is no doubt that many of them fight for other causes as well — in 2011, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to protest growing economic disparities, resulting in one of the most vigorous social movements in the history of the country. The tragedy with social actions in Israel, however, is that they emphasize just how much Israelis are willing to turn a blind eye to one of the most significant immoral human right violations: Israel’s decades-long oppression and occupation of millions of Palestinians.

By choosing to fight for more mainstream causes, many Jewish Israelis allow themselves to continue living in dissociation. It serves as a way to clear their consciences from their indifference and passiveness in the face of the human rights abuses in the occupied territories.

I want to suggest academic socio-psychological explanations for the reasons why many Jewish Israelis avoid protesting about the occupation, while they are very vocal and comfortable fighting for other causes.

One explanation is the many social and physical walls between Israelis and Palestinians. These walls manifest literally — with the separation barrier — but also in segregated schools, neighborhoods, and institutions that act as emotional, cognitive, and cultural barriers. The result is a distortion of reality that is meant to justify the occupation and dehumanize Palestinians.


We know from a 2010 study on the implications of occupation on the occupying society that many Israelis use various defense mechanisms to dull the feelings of guilt regarding the oppression of Palestinians. Psychological defense mechanisms help them keep their self-perception as “good human beings” while terrible acts and events are taking place nearby.

When people are exposed to information they cannot cope with, they steer away from that information. This state...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article