Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"
Автор книги: Лев Гунин
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 86 (всего у книги 88 страниц)
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 Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an
"independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli
government!
COMMENTS
1.See Bibliography
2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second sentence.
4.See Bibliography, – #2.
5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and also – p.p.1,2,3.
6.See Bibliography, – #3.
7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the children's nationality is
given after their mother's nationality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Une comissaire du statut de rйfugiй accusй de partialitй ", – by Franзois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December 15-21, 1994.
3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian Jews Riot Over
Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES". "THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And also: "Rights of Humans and
Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS"). August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A
Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next Documents:
1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli government to legalize
tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the detainees.
2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than 'unclean meat' – shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew, Professor Israel
Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work and they use
Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's 47th Street : Maariv, September
2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York correspondent
4) American Civil Rights Review http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^[email protected]/86
10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New York.1990.
12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime Minister of
Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE" 11."WASHINGTON POST"
12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG" 14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE
STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18. "EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES AND ORGANIZATIONS
FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
To Amnesty International's London Office
Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration hearings in our case.
2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our contacts with Amnesty International.
3) Because what happened during our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so incredible and horrible that will encourage human right
violations everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the immigration officer falsificated Amnesty International's (and other human rights
organizations') documents and lied about them. 6) Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under the Geneva Convention act) but
faces abuses, ungrounded accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room – that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the
very basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain (and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration bord) that we
are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will be turned back to Israel.
We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were "welcomed" by a
malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came to Israel. Each of us (including our
son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel with the Russian-speaking people can not make what
we and our friends suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and
could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it
"unreal"? And the computer games in Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They were as real as the real life. And the social
climate in Israel is so horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" – he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli
but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew, go to a library or
to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about thousands of articles in Russian
newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service each time they
called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a single son can not be taken into the
front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft point again and again. One day a new routine order to
come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day but the order have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple
of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got it he immediately went to the draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted. Everything
happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he was called to intentionally. He
was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the military service. They have treated him like if he
already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as if he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and
never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a
Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew– speaking psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations.
When later a Russian-speaking psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms in his case were
too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill boy. When he was released from
the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court took place) the military medical committee
recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received
some treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But the civil
lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the case.We demanded a
military lawyer but the military commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places like Israel Bar Association, human
rights organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we decided to send
a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us – a dissident and a journalist Lev G. – has contacted Amnesty International and later submitted several faxes
to them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be arrested again if we
will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee claimants. We flied to Montreal in
November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely described what
happened to us in our claim's atory without any distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration courtroom and between and after our
2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed. 2)Other extremely
important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not – they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including
Amnesty International's confirmation of our complain) were mentioned as incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support
other events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were ignored. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was
asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was
repeated – but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the same answer again
and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral
and legal norms – and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. 5) Too often they
questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own – and later based their conclusions not on our
answers but on their own statement posing it as our – not their words. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a
refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned: A demolition of our
family, a criminal offense – and so on! 7) Several times the bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or by my aproval of the
democracy laws. It is absolutely clear that our case was treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since – in the
judges' eyes – we belong not to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position – neither being ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself
made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good" country in an
imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history. So the only criteria chosen to
support the bord's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to refugees is to base the decision on what
happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and
verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights. 10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information
about us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant
escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents
submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) – newspapers, statements, declarations, and
so on – weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In
the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of
our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4)
expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the
hearing in G. family case (our cases are related, and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she
previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she
had a personal reason to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental illness and the
evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We understood that questions which she
asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of a description
intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put everything that happened to his
family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own
inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it
by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining.
We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of
descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she
excluded the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The translator also
sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims. She told us that she has translated
some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No
documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert
some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were
taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was
doing the translation of his story. The members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it
wasn't occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer – and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This gentlemen is an
informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner.
Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This article is outright slander, mystification, false
insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told him some things which G. never told to any other person. But
during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation
but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7) Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of
the immigration board in our cases, is an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an
informative role only. We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be
confirmed, if somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and – may be – legal rights to judge in refugees'
from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that
legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to translate his wife's parents' nationality.
There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of
December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no
connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice
of the immigration officer. She was a real judge – and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on
her words exclusively: Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers
completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations. Nothing what the judges
said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to deny our claim was made by the
immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the
declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration
lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is not. This is a
privilege of an academic institution but not of an executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel is a democracy in an imperative manner
giving the refugee claimants no possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is clear from what was discussed during our immigration
hearings that Israel has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in
special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single son and who's not,
an imprisonment for months without an official accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable may be for a mental hospital – but not for a
"democratic society". An opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to
do with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G. as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was possible to
help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police, the Ministry of internal affairs
and police, which were unanswered, to the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just ignores everything. And recognize only the
ungrounded Israel's declarations. And the immigration officer – a person who sends faxes to Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's
in tight connection with Israelis – is the only person who has a decidable voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!
We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because
1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings and I can widen
them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In Israel where the ideology and the
patriotic education play a very important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted for that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were
so strong that if we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called "21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israel: Because in
Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we faced in Israel
we feel fear – and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is impossible for us to live in Israel any
more. In the name of God, in the name of Justice – HELP US!!!
CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G. case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remine of an
incuisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish us for flieding Israel and G. – for his ideological views – not to decide
whether or not our (ours and G. family's) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information
about human rights violations in Israel which not concerns Arabs can be calmed down – and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear that
they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their words, their behavior
