ГУЛаг Палестины
Шрифт:
organizations and to thousands of other destinations. I made them available on Internet for the same purposes. So,
Israelis know them, too, anyway.
C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and the immigration officer instead of defining whether or not we could
face persecutions in Israel (as we claimed), concentrated on accusing us as if it was a criminal court. They
characterized me as an exaggerator and defamator, dangerous (they do not use this word but it is the only
characteristic of what they meant) to the state of Israel* (see commentaries in the end of this part). Their insinuations that I turned to innumerous places in Israel, including human rights organizations, MP's, police, Amnesty International (see the list of them in Supplements, Document # 8; see also copies of documentary proof of my appeals to
various organizations in Supplements, Documents # 9,10,11,12) not because I looked for protection but to
"spread slender about Israel"** (see comments 2 at the end of that part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here (in Canada) they were used as an excuse to deny our refugee claim, and the negative decision
was logically presented as a "punishment" for "slander" and "exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last
paragraphs on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs 1, 2). Israeli authorities would consider Montreal's
"immigration court's" (IRB) decision to define us as enemies of Israel and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading
order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably, an Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,
expressed her almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality in such tones and colors, which could
perfectly correspond to the manners and mentality of Israelis. Their most sensitive feelings would be touched by her
words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be removed to Israel (please, read the
whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open threats, including a threat to
open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).
D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the negative decision somehow separated me
from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my family suffering and refused the status only
because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate me from my family or even take away our
children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
(in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and, probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also because of what the commissioners' did.
E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we left, to the worse. I present documents (see
Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist government is not ready to maintain just
any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to more severe consequences if we would be
removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes already took place, and the commissioners had to
know pretty good about that...
F). Policemen in Israel could still remember my wife's, mother's, and my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry
of Police and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now, - when in their brief description of my refugee claim members of IRB
severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments), - how could we turn for defense in Israel any
more? The IRB members' action made us completely insecure and unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since
the context of their negative decision is already known to Israeli authorities].
* The negative decision mentioned the paragraph about slavery in my refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph correspond to a specific tendency in Israel called "kablanut", 3) two newspaper articles, which described "kablanut" and openly denounced it as slavery. (See these articles in Supplements, Doc. #81). An affidavit about the event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me in Israel by Lev Ginsburg (see Supplements, Doc.82). We became victims of extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were respected more then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles and other documents provided by another side were totally ignored. Documents, which demonstrated non-competence and partiality and were provided by the members of Israeli government
(Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions (Israeli embassy) or committed to Israeli government fundraisers (Dr. Livny) were presented as only reliable and "independent"!
** After expressed by IRB members' insinuations that I turned to various organizations and institutions in Israel not for protection but to "spread slander" I could have no protection in Israel any more if removed there. IRB's insinuation is a verdict for non-protection in the state of Israel! How could we go back there now?!
CHILDREN.
During our refugee hearings, the commissioners had chances to observe our children.
They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still not in norm.
Because of abuses and insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and hyper kineses. It stopped only about one
year ago. We possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period of refugee hearings the children still had
impulsive face muscles' contractions and other visual neurological disorders.