ГУЛаг Палестины

declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on

our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and

tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do

with juridical documents.

Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for

example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't

care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not

be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"

as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such

"evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to

explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses

his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In

other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that for

h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,

on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,

precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.

They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer

"yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions

of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family

Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no

inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took

these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same

document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We

mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took

place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made

efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"

were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we

also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit

A-1 (5.4) mentions a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption

("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American,

European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And the Exhibit

A-1 changes it to the "Department of Integration"... In reality the Zionist ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's,

Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their

desires completely well. It means that the Exhibit A-1 replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then how

can such a document be considered as a credible one? We can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and

strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is

mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any

juridical document! Let's to abstract from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects

the mentality of Israelis (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his national identity as

Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to

"welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving

money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where

population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to

welcome new immigrants? And then - how those figures, 80% of Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft

board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" - and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We

don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was

mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration

was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands

of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with

malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". The suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just

because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat

"Russians" not like they treat Israelis. We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know

this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies

of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known

before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its

chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the time of our hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And