Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its

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 innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on

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 connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the

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

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. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister

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