ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

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 composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by

Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke

that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a

successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other

countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology,