ГУЛаг Палестины

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". By

the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice

towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow

structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality

were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucie

of Immigration - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their

refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees

from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How

can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state?

In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might

happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly

that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no

persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it

recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In

next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals

concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too.

The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of

just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this

event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then

may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I

told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by

Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained

during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into

consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether

or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political

asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want

show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a

picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks

like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph

is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to

show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of

police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like

Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to

find protection in Israel!

The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members'

help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show

that Israel is a state of injustice.

The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has

nothing what to do with our claim.

Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know

that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also 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 this document 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 document, which was used

as an "indisputable source of information" 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 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