SIDEBAR: the evidence

Israel launched reprisal attacks on Gaza within hours of the Eilat-area attacks on Thursday 18 August.

Not too long afterwards, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu went on Israeli television and told his country and the world that the PRC, a small resistance group in Gaza, was responsible — and that Popular Resistance Committee [PRC] leaders [who Netanyahu said had ordered the attack] were “no longer among the living”. Further Israeli attacks killed more PRC leaders in continuing attacks on Thursday night, and civilians were also killed, including several children.

The Israeli attacks are continuing, as is retaliatory firing of projectiles from Gaza onto surrounding Israeli communities.

On Saturday morning, the IDF Spokesperson, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich [@AvitalLeibovich] sent out a Tweet with a link to a photo that she described this way: “Here is what one of the terrorist that killed Israelis on Thursday, carried upon his body:”

The link led to this photo:

Photo presented by IDF – initially captioned as taken on January 27 2008


The IDF photo is posted on a Flickr site.  [noteFlickr takes the info automatically from the original photos – unless, of course, they are copied, and the coding is then changed…]

The caption material read:

Explosives from the 18/8/11 Multi-Pronged Terror Attack

August 19, 2011
“Explosive materials and weapons found on the bodies of the terrorists who carried out a multi-pronged terror attack that targeted Israeli civilians on August 18, 2011. The terror attack left eight people dead and about 40 injured.
“In a premeditated attack, terrorists targeted Israeli civilians, who were on their way to Eilat, a popular tourist destination for summer vacations. All of the incidents took place near the Israel-Egypt border. According to Israeli intelligence, the terrorists originated from Gaza”.

Then, I happened to notice the information written to the right side of the photo.

It read [at least it did, this morning]:
By Israel Defense Forces
This photo was taken, on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700.

When I went back to Twitter, I noticed that @AvitalLeibovich had Tweeted to @MargieInTelAviv that the explosives found on body in Eilat attack are from Gaza: same type used during CastLead Op.

The IDF’s Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza was conducted from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009…


I then Tweeted to @AvitalLeibovich:
“Wait. @AvitalLeibovich, why does note on this page re 18 Aug attack say ‘This photo was taken on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700’??”

She replied:
“@Marianhouk The photo was taken yesterday as was the briefing i gave. Approx. 10 journalists attended the briefing”.

Then, she retweeted something sent out by the generic @IDFSpokesperson Twitter account. which showed a photo of her standing in front of a table containing some similiar if not identical materials, at the briefing for journalists she mentioned.

Here is that photo:
Avital Leibovich briefing journalists - material said to be taken on 18 August from body of Eilat attacker is on table
The Tweet that announced this photo reads:
#Photo: @AvitalLeibovich displays detonated explosives found on #terrorists from ystrdy’s attack #IsraelUnderFire #IDF


Another Tweeter took issue with the assertion that “detonated explosives” were displayed:
No, they are NOT “detonated” !! RT @IDFSpokesperson: #Photo: @AvitalLeibovich displays detonated explosives fo… (cont)

He is right. The IDF announced that sappers had detonated the explosives on the site of the attacks, 20 km north of Eilat.
However, the first photo above, of just the stuff, shows unexploded material, and a detonator, in addition to a rifle and bullet cartridges etc. While the photo of Avital Leibovich briefing shows no unexploded material [I guess that would improve safety at the briefing…]

He complained again:
@AvitalLeibovich Yes, agreed–but they aren’t “detonated” (=already blown up) explosives; & why didn’t caption describe other weapons?

Then, in response to @CitizenWald’s request, Avital Leibovic then explains exactly what is in the photo:
@CitizenWald It’s simple:in the picture you can see a flack jacket with 4 grenades,a stabbing knife,explosive belt;this was on the ter. body

But, my point is that, of course, just because Avital Leibovich gave a briefing to journalists on 19 August, with similar material piled on the table in front of her, does not exclude or rule out the possibility that the IDF took a picture of the very same or similar stuff [as if it were just a prop] on 27 January 2008 — as the information on the page initially read.
I did mention this in a Tweet:
Surely, @IDFSpokesperson, @AvitalLeibovich, u can see page shows AL w/ stuff on Fri, but doesn’t prove IDF didn’t photo same stuff Jan 2008

The head of the IDF New Media Desk, @SachaDratwa, had retweeted Avital Leibovich’s link to the first photo [which was originally marked as taken on January 27, 2008]. A while later, he responded to me [in French]:
@Marianhouk C’est une erreur sur Flickr, les photos ont été prise hier. [Translation: “It’s a mistake on Flikr, the photos were taken yesterday”].

I actually first thought that it was some kind of mistake, at first — some mistake in not filling out the template on the Flikr page or something — and I even Tweeted that it needed correction.

First, the Flikr page was changed — and it was “corrected” to read as follows:
AFTER: This photo was taken on August 19, 2011 using a Nikon D700. 338 views

Whereas BEFORE, it read: This photo was taken on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700. 117 views

Then, as I looked around on Flikr and on the IDF Spokespersons’ web pages, I saw that the first picture was included in not just one, but two — yes, two — Flikr “sets”:
(1) one set was this: Terror in the South, 18.08.2011-(Set: 12), but
(2) the other set was from the archives, on a page labelled photos taken on January 27, 2008, and posted on this page:

They couldn’t have just mistakenly created this page, yesterday or today, and then mistakenly put the first photo above on that page.

No, it wasn’t just a mistake on Flikr — and it does indeed seem that the first photo was indeed in the archives, and had apparently indeed been taken on the date indicated.

Soon enough, within a couple of hours, that page was then deleted. What remains is this:

Israel Defense Forces’ photostream

Archives / Taken in / 2008 / January / 27th (0 items)
There’s nothing available to you in this view of Israel Defense Forces’ archive.
This is probably because:
•Israel Defense Forces didn’t take any photos or video on 27th January 2008,
•The dates have been changed,
•Content has been deleted, or,
•You clicked on a ‘posted on’ date link from something private that you can only see because it is in the pool of a group that you belong to. (Private things don’t show up in people’s archives, except when you’re looking at your own.)

Finally, a new photo was added to the IDF photostreams on Flikr, which showed the material that was on the table during Friday’s briefing [it looks newer, cleaner, and there is no explosive material, or for that matter no rifle]:

The new photo added to the IDF photostreams on 20 August 2011, when corrections being made

Then, to complete our understanding of the real picture, I came upon this from Real News Network, an interview with Lt Col Avital Leibovich by Lia Tarachansky for Real News Network. The interview was clearly recorded just after Avital’s briefing on Friday.

It was remarked upon by numerous other Tweeters and bloggers.
Amazing: @AvitalLeibovich of @IDFSpokesperson goes on record saying no evidence for Gaza connection to Eilat attacks | |

Didi Remez’s link leads to this post: “Israeli army hasn’t the faintest idea who launched the Eilat attacks” — which is rather more polite than some others wrote. It was written by Paul Woodward on August 20, 2011 and published here, and it contains a partial transcript of the interview itself [clearly, Avital was already tired by the time the interview was recorded…]

Tarachansky: On what are you basing your conclusion that this group [the Popular Resistance Committees] is responsible for the terror attacks?

IDF Spokesperson: We did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack. We based this on intelligence information as well as some facts that [we] actually presented an hour ago to some wires and journalists. Some of the findings that were from the bodies of the terrorists, and they are using for example Kalashnikov bullets and Kalashnikov rifles are very common in Gaza –

Paul Woodward then commented: “So, the IDF says it ‘knows’ the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs … The Kalashnikov is the most widely available weapon on the planet. According to Jane’s Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 this rifle is in use in over 70 countries”…

And, by Saturday evening, other Tweeters, such as @HybridStates, were exploring the apparent contradictions between the Israeli Prime Minister’s accusations (conviction and sentencing as well) of the PRC, while the IDF takes the position that Hamas is ultimately responsible…

UPDATE: Just to put this in a bit of context, see Sami Kishawi’s blog post today questioning other IDF photo evidence here and one other post Kishawi links to, Ibn Kafka’s blog post on 2 June 2010, with evidence attributed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, here.
And now, thanks to the link kindly supplied by nikkor1, below, there are also these — with the caution that this is not an exhaustive list: here and here, as well as here, and here.
On top of that, I can also add one more, from my own personal knowledge [in which Ali Abunimah notes “Thanks to Marian Houk ( ), I have learned that the Israeli army originally uploaded a video (below) in which the same naval officer in the video above has an innocuous conversation with a ship in which the only reply from the ship is ‘Negative, Negative, our destination is Gaza’. There is no ‘anti-Semitism’ or anything that paints the Flotilla passengers as raving bigots”…] : here

OBSERVATION: False evidence, and falsifying evidence, is never convincing. Israel has cause for complaint about indiscriminate firing of rockets, mortars and missiles from Gaza onto surrounding Israeli civilian areas. But when and how Israel orders reprisals gives rise to real and legitimate questions. The questioning of criticism of over-eager, fake, sloppy or falsified evidence does not only not answer the real and legitimate questions — it is just propaganda. And, this raises even more real and legitimate questions about Israel’s policy. A professional military leaves propaganda to others, nowadays.

17 thoughts on “SIDEBAR: the evidence”

  1. You gotcha! Another IDF falsification!
    But, stop- Nikon D700 have been introduced on June 2008, and apparently can not been used to capture an image on January 2008?
    Never mind! let’s not give the facts to change your nice theory.

  2. There you are, nikkor1. Long time — where have you been?

    Do you have any “facts”, other than “it was a mistake on Flickr”?
    That was not sufficiently convincing. About when the camera model was introduced, I have no idea… Clever of you to find this June 2008 date.

    The IDF does not deny that this photo was originally posted as having been taken on January 27 2008.

    I was really wondering about what could have happened here — until I found a thumbnail of the top photo, on an archived page of the IDF photostream, dated January 27 2008. Yes, that Flikr page was marked and archived as created on the date January 27 2008. Only that photo was posted on that page.

    Now, that page is empty, the photo has been deleted, and the information posted above is all that remains…

    Could that page have been somehow mistakenly created on 19 or 20 August 2011, and then labelled January 27 2008, really?

  3. I’m here and there 🙂

    You are so biased, therefore you don’t even trying to explain this issue other then IDF’s falsification.
    Exactly the same allegation were running after Mavi Marmara incident:

    “Digital cameras, like most digital devices, have an internal battery that keeps the clock running when the camera is turned off or when the main battery goes flat. Alas, they only last a few years. Once they’re dead, each time you swap your camera batteries the clock resets?—?typically to January 1 in the year of the camera’s manufacture.”

    1. Yeah, this article is only about the IDF, and the evidence it presented…

      And yeah, we’ve heard exactly the same allegation before…

      You’d think the IDF would have done a thorough “lessons-learned” exercise, and preparation…

    1. ‘Hmmm… This wikipedia article tells me: “The Nikon D700 has been tested by many independent reviewers and has generally received high marks. It achieved a top ranking in the DxOmark Sensor ranking and is currently ranked sixth behind the Nikon D3, Nikon D3S, Nikon D3X and two medium format cameras. The camera received several awards, including a Digital Photography Review “Highly Recommended” award” …

      And it says “The Nikon D700 is a professional grade full-frame digital single-lens reflex camera introduced by the Nikon Corporation in July 2008 and manufactured in Japan”.
      I guess you want me to believe that it was manufactured in January 2008 (on the 27th?), and introduced by the Nikon Corporation in July 2008. OK. Maybe.

      But, what about the IDF photostream webpage archive for January 27 2008 — now modified ??????????

      The Wikipedia page you linked to also tells me that this camera has a “GPS interface for direct geotagging“.

      And, Wikipedia tells me that “This page was last modified on 19 July 2011 at 04:52″… 🙂

  4. Biased, biased… really nikkor1, how can YOU say that?

    OK, so this camera’s internal batteries set the clock back — you are suggesting as a possibility — not to January 1, but to January 27 of the year 2008?

    But, please, what about the archived IDF photostream webpage dated January 27 2008? This webpage was not created by the clock’s batteries… And, the photo on this webpage, which is the photo in question, the top or first one in this post, was on that webpage in the morning, then removed by the IDF…

    It’s the webpage, and not so much the alterable information written on and about the photo archived on it, that convinced me.

    Coming back to your suggestion of any other possibility, which you back up with this link to– [love the “In all likelihood” qualifier below] — here are some pertinent excepts from the comments:
    Exhibit A: Comment by Stilgherrian
    Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 2:16 pm
    …”When you first upload a photo to Flickr, it automatically sets the displayed ‘Taken on’ date to whatever date is
    recorded in the image file’s EXIF data as the capture date. However this can be wrong because the camera’s clock
    can be incorrectly set or, if you’re scanning old photographic prints from the 1960s, the scanner sets the capture date to the date you did the scan. Assuming the scanner’s clock was set correctly. Similarly, Flickr allows you to change the location data to something different from that recorded in the image file’s EXIF data. Why? One example would be a smartphone with GPS recording the photo’s location as wherever the phone was when it last got a decent satellite fix, as opposed to where the phone was when the photo was taken. In all likelihood, all we’re seeing here is the normal workflow for publishing sets of photos on Flickr. Step 1, batch upload the photos. Step 2, fix the broken metadata”.

    Exhibit B: Another comment on the post, this one by Michael R James
    Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 4:36 pm
    “The EXIF data is a bit of a red herring in that it can be changed within software later. And anyone providing
    digital images would know that. But it also is unlikely that a professional photographer’s camera would not be correctly configured, not only because they take a lot of care with their gear but it is important to properly archive and access the mountain (multi-GB) of data/images the collect“. [emphasis added here]

  5. Also love these comments on the post:

    Exhibit C: Sancho
    Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 8:05 pm
    “Was the photographer IDF?
    Uniformity is the watchword of military organisations. It’s all but impossible to believe that a piece of digital equipment used by the IDF wouldn’t be set precisely and checked for accuracy before every deployment. Crikey recently hosted an article about the Pentagon’s exacting stipulations for chocolate brownie recipes, and now some would have us believe that a military force trained and armed by the Pentagon runs around documenting evidence of terrorism with unconfigured cameras”…

    And this one:
    Exhibit D: Socratease
    Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 4:38 pm
    “EXIF data is unreliable. It can be edited easily. Google ‘EXIF editor’.” [emphasis also added here…]

  6. Wow!
    to many text there!
    Could you please formulate concrete questions and I will try to refer it one by one?

  7. Asking for “concrete questions” is a standard put-down tactic, nikkor1 — not your usual gallant self !

    The questions are clear.

    I’m going out, have other things to do, back later…

  8. O.K.- somebody need to do this job for a motherland 🙂

    1. the origin of Jan 27 2008 date in EXIF data in the original image is clear: the person who grabbed the camera that day just didn’t verified that date setting was reseted to Jan 1, 2008 (default by camera) 27 day before it. Unfortunately, those photographers that are working in IDF spokesperson’s office (as most of all personal of this office) are just 18 yr. old regular serviceman, and as you mentioned, they should be hired professionals. This camera is office equipment and not personal camera, and the handling is not proper at all.
    So, “wrong” EXIF data in the image is a result of negligence and lack of professionalism.

    2. When image was uploaded to Flicker, another person (or the same one) used EXIF data and set picture data of capture to Jan 27, 2008.
    Now, you should understand how Flicker is working: if I will upload today picture and will set date when picture have been taken to 27 Jan, 2008, it will appear in archive on that day!
    This is not real archive, it just the way to represent images in some order! You can conclude that I’ve uploaded this image on that day.
    Therefore, when you asked in tweeter about “wrong” date, they modified image “data when taken” and relevant page in archive is gone! That’s simple- no conspiracy.

    In conclusion: that is most easy way to accuse IDF in an evidence fabrication, especially if it comply with your modus operandi

  9. OK.

    For the record, three different IP addresses have been used by God-knows-how-many-different-people writing under the name nikkor1 and posting comments here today.

    I do not know who they work for.

    But, they do take an interest in how the IDF is portrayed.

    Now, dear last nikkor1 just above, you say that the photos I have been writing about work for the IDF spokespersons office.

    Indeed, our experience as journalists is that most of the people working in the IDF spokespersons office are 18-years-old, with everything that implies. More often than not, we never get an answer… many journalists here don’t even bother, other than getting the perfunctory and pro forma denial, so they can pop it into their stories as a fig leaf of objectivity.

    Some of the IDF spokespersons, however, are adults with long IDF careers — and however overworked and tired they are, they have a responsibility to deal with this situation correctly, and professionally.

    Now you, nikkor1, give an explanation that fits some of the argumentation above, but without any real proof. You just say so. Wonder if you really checked, yourself? Or did you just write what somebody told you?

    It’s clear that the IDF made a mistake. But I was told earlier, on Twitter, by an IDF spokesperson, that it was a mistake on Flikr. [see the timeline of @SachaDratwa — though probably he only wrote what he was told, without checking…]

    Wouldn’t you say that was disingenuous, if not misleading?
    Someone could even argue that it was intentionally misleading.

    Do you even know who took took the camera, who took the photo, and who uploaded it onto Flikr? Did that person, or those persons, tell you what they did. or didn’t, do?

    I do not know if what you wrote here is true — there is absolutely no proof, just an assertion written under what is a pseudonym, a clearly fake name.

    Since you are admitting mistakes were made, and since you are acknowledging a lack of professionalism, nikkor1, wouldn’t it be better just to stop at that?

    How do you think your concluding remark improves your case? Why are you trying to attack, and insult me by insinuation [what exactly do you mean by my “modus operandi”?]

    I asked questions. And I was right. There was a mistake, here, and a big lack of professionalism. Sneering, which is what you are doing in your last concluding sentence here, doesn’t obscure that fact.

    And, there are still a lot more questions…

  10. Marian, if somebody makes insinuation here- it’s not me.
    I answered to your concrete questions, and you, instead of constructively discuss it, immediately accused me in impersonation (I wrote here under nickname nikkor1 from several locations during the day: home, mobile, work. In all the cases I entered my email for identification).
    You not even tried to make minimal research about facts I’ve brought here, i.e. read Flicker FAQ, download original photo and see EXIF data (Jan 27, 2008 is still there). Nothing can destroy your paradigm about IDF conduct. In all attempts to explain that may be other reasons except of the IDF’s fraudulent behavior, you see only personal assault.
    Do you have any real proofs that IDF used staged photo in this occasion?
    Do you have any real proofs that IDF deliberately misleading in EXIF mistake?
    The questions are clear.

    1. Nikkor1, your comments about “bias” and “modus operandi” etc. are insinuations…

      Concrete answers to your questions:

      No, I do not have any real proof that the IDF had a stock photo, of “terrorist props” [suicide vest, etc], taken either on January 27, 2008 or on some other date, which was then pulled out and re-used on 19 August 2011… but the question did present itself.

      As I already wrote, I initially thought at first it was just an ordinary mistake, made in a rush, with superior officers demanding the photo “proof” quick, quick, quick, early on a Saturday morning, not normally a working day in Israel. Or, maybe it was sloppiness, laziness, or even the certainty that the press and the public are just plain stupid, and — either because of their bias in favor of the IDF, or because of informed discretion — won’t ask too many questions, because those who do will surely be denounced as biased etc., and will soon be discredited and dismissed…

      But my suspicions grew, especially when I found the archived page dated January 27, 2008 [with. posted there, a thumbnail of the first photo shown in the post above.]

      I was told at midday Saturday, simply, that it had been a “mistake” on, or by, Flikr… without any further explanation.

      And no further information was forthcoming.

      Was this stuff — taken from a body, we were told — taken from somebody with no ID, with no identity? Still unknown?

      In fact, the first photo does look rather different from the two photos posted after I asked my questions. Maybe it’s due to a different light, a different location, a different camera, etc… Whereas, the stuff that was on the table in front of Avital looks different, newer, the colors are different. And the third photo looks just like what was on the table at the briefing Avital gave to some journalists on Friday. But the first photo seems different… and some stuff is missing, probably for eminently sensible reasons, as I wrote above. But, the explosive material was intact, and not detonated…

      I later asked Avital, on Twitter, about how many attackers had actually been killed — there was clearly confusion on Thursday and even on Friday; She replied that six had been “targetted” [does that mean killed?] Who were they? [from Gaza. no names or other info given…] Where were their bodies? [there is a cemetery for terrorists, I was told… Were they already buried???]

      Because there was a clear confusion, I then asked about the number of Egyptian military killed, what happened to their bodies, etc… but got no answer.

      Richard Silverstein has an astonishing photo on his Tikkun Olam blog, here, which he says shows Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the site of some of the attacks, in the Eilat area:
      Ehud Barak standing next to Israeli military sniper killed in continuing attacks 30 minutes later near Eilat on 18 August 2011

      The soldier whose face is not obscured, standing next to Barak, is said to be one of the Israeli military snipers who was killed that day — in fact, he was killed just 30 minutes after the photo was taken, according to Silverstein… Yet, here, they looked relaxed, laughing…

      The IDF Spokespersons’ unit has posted an account of some of what happened on August 18, entitled “A Day in the Life of Captain Z., Explosives Ordnance Disposal Officer”. In it, Captain Z. tells us: “After arriving at the scene, our force noticed that one of the terrorists was wearing an explosive device. We immediately cleared MADA, the Israeli medical services, away from the scene. After a closer inspection, we saw that numerous explosive devices were located nearby. We got to work, using a remote control robot to defuse a bomb that was strapped to one of the terrorists. Suddenly we were hit by fire coming from the west … All the while, shots continued to fly. We were glued down to the floor for nearly two hours, returning fire and waiting for the scene to calm down. Finally, our soldiers, together with aerial support, managed to kill the rest of the terrorists, allowing us to continue with our work. The work is slow, careful work…but we finally managed to get out at around midnight”. In the meantime, despite efforts at first aid, one of the two Israeli military snipers who had been shot [maybe the man shown in the photo with Barak, in this comment] died. This account is posted here.

      Now, the information you presented as an explanation, nikkor1, is an assertion, without real proof that that’s what really happened in this case.

      It is almost identical to the argumentation made over a year ago, on Ibn Kafka’s blog on June 2, 2010, here, by someone posting comments using the pseudonym Omri, who writes, among other things:
      Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:34 , Omri a dit:
      These pictures were taken by a Nikon D2Xs camera. The internal clock on these starts in 2006-01-01, according to
      the manual. So, the cameraman in the IDF changed the batteries 2 months ago and did not reset the time.

      Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:57, Omri a dit:
      And the 2003 images were taken by a Pentax Optio 550 camera, which have a default system clock time of 2003-01-01.
      Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:59 , Omri a dit:
      Amazing what you can find by looking in the user’s manual of a camera.

      and so on.

      How can it be — now, all this has happened all over again!

      Do you really expect that everyone should know — or should have to do all the research possible — about how the IDF organizes its photostream on Flikr? [Do you seriously maintain that this is in the public domaine?]

      Are are we all supposed to know how the IDF just rushes out to every emergency without checking the timestamp on the batteries of the cameras it uses to document major events — such as a “multipronged terror attack”?

      Is everyone supposed to be able to check the EXIF coding? I can’t do it, myself — and I don’t expect everybody else can do it either. Do I think the IDF was deliberately misleading in the coding? No, I think the IDF did not realize they were making this mistake. It was changed — whether or not it was “corrected” — after the mistake was called to their attention.

      If people don’t do this every time they look at photos the IDF puts out as “evidence”, you will then feel free to accuse people of bias, or of having some unspecified but clearly bad “modus operandi”, if not worse?

      You don’t think it’s up to the IDF to do the job right?

      The IDF made a mistake here. This is not contested [except that the blame has been put first on Flikr, and then on some 18-year-olds]. But, then, the IDF should give a credible and transparent explanation, which has not yet been done.

      Now, as to nikkor1, there have been at least 13 or 14 different IP addresses using this name — and the “voices” have not all been the same, from the attitude to the command of English. So, it would be surprising now if you, the person who answered me yesterday, was the only one writing to me all day {over a period of many hours}… though it is possible.

      As to your email address — there is no real name attached to it. And, it’s in a Russian domaine. I have no idea who you [and all the other nikkor and nikkor1s really are, or who you work for] — but, do you seriously think I believe you are a Russian, or in Russia?

  11. Marian, don’t fall into the paranoia: I’m a real person, and I’ve wrote all the comments by myself and on my behalf.

    1. About different IP addresses: most of israely internet providers uses dynamic IP addressing, that’s why each time I open internet connection I get new IP

    2. About my email: of course it’s not my primary email – privacy, you know. But we exchanged some emails about a year ago (if you remember that).

    3. I’m not in Russia – I’m in Israel.

    4. About my English: it’s improving! Each time I’m reading your posts I encountered new idioms: you have great language!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *