Страница 149 из 340
history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a
miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as
nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International
confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were
solders of an enemy army, not i
distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents.
I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision
paragraph after paragraph.
Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our
PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages
are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In
reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for
younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot
celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It
makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my
testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in
her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something
wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone
composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the
truth?
We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced
about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who
composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in co
Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands
and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference!
Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means
that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that
right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the
former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property
escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a
refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this
family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance,
and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do
with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was
founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation.
Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation
of Constitution. But as in former USSR between constitution and real life there were thousands of executive laws, which could just abolish
what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real
life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away from the real life is the Law of Return, which
was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical
insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first
day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free!(I
can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time).
So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are
absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We
described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish
organizations to show where their money is going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power!
The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the
last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new
immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical
document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused
of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made
practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and
Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) 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 (Mrs. Malka's intention to
choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her 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