n 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
     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
     infiltrated  by  the government. By the time of our second  hearing Mr.
Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So
     he  presented the  view  of Israeli government as an "independent" view
that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the
     source  of  all the  manipulations  with the  refugees  from  Israel in
Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which
     was closed by  my  answer  during our first immigration  hearing.  Mrs.
Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no
     Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police.
I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to
     police, to  the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the
     explanation  because my mails  were  unanswered and  my complains  were
never registered. I also presented an article, which gives
     absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can
be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a
     policeman who get a fine because of his  refusal to help an  Arab as an
"evidence" looks like a clowned.

     It  was clear  for the tribunal  that it's impossible to avoid comments
about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we
     presented.  It was clear that something  must be said. This  is why the
next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was
     designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our
documents were rejected because its members took into consideration
     only "absolutely reliable" documents. And  it looks like  there were no
such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like
     the letter from the Minister  of Culture  Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which
shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of
     coincidences,  Amnesty  International's  confirmation,  Lev  Ginsburg's
affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other
     official papers can  not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable".
Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not
     recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way:  to  ignore them.  It's
your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the
     tribunal's partiality. But we ask you  to read over the paragraph #4 on
page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the
     possibility of existence of  such a category  of refugees  as "refugees
from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any
     documents from  a  tribunal,  which  refuse to recognize  refugees from
Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to
     distinguish   between  "reliable"   and  "non-reliable"   documents  is
reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of
     view: one of them  is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another
one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing
     as  an independent  source,  and  in  reality  is the voice of  Israeli
government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing
     because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law
of Return), and nothing more.

     The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is
a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings.

     And  the ignorance of the medical documents  is the thing from the same
category.

     Please, believe us that our lives were in  a real danger in Israel  and
that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were
     threatened from Israel even here,  and we presented  the proof. Please,
save our souls!

     Lev Gunin

     NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]]




     Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE

     PREVIOUES DOCUMENT  NEXT DOCUMENT

     From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998

     Dear Friends!

     Please, try to  treat  this letter as  an unusual appeal,  not  just  a
desperate cry for help and justice.

     In October  1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second  decision
in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic
     decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives.

     Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that
sad date.
     The head of the family, Lev GUNIN,  as all  members of the  family, was
born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous
     coincidences in 1971-72 turned  him, a  secondary school student, young
compose