We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for abetter life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were "welcomed"by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severediscrimination. Our son was 15 when we came to Israel. Each of us (includingour son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignoranceof what is going on in Israel with the Russian-speaking people can notmake 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 couldcome to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in aHebrew newspaper, in which “Russians” were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes,fools and thieves: was it “unreal”? And the computer games in Hebrew accompaniedby songs with words like “Russians, go home”:They were as real as the reallife. And the social climate in Israel is so horrible that if a child isbeaten at school “because he’s Russian” - he is forced to feel guilty himselfas if he’s guilty in not being an Israeli but being a Russian.

Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a humanright organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew, go toa library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers whichhave highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about thousandsof articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can becalled almost a genocide against “Russians”?

When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsorymilitary service) he asked an alternative military service each time theycalled him: because he was afraid of hostility towards “Russians” withinthe Israeli army and also because of the rule that a single son can notbe 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 daya new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was orderedto come one day - but the order have been sent one day later then the dateof 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 tothe order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted. Everythinghappened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they havesubmitted 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 hisvoluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the military service. They have treatedhim like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. Hewas also given a soldier's number as if he was a soldier when in realityhe never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When headmitted that he’s going to become mentally ill because of the militaryprison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and theHebrew- speaking psychologist couldn’t speak with our son, but wrote areport based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speakingpsychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it isimpossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.

When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were committedover him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms in hiscase were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment ourson was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill boy. When hewas released from the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3months; no charges were posed against him, no court took place) the militarymedical committee recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he wasjust imprisoned he was recognized as a fully healthy person suitable tothe military service.He received some treatment here, in Canada, and theimmigration board know it. We did everything we could to release our sonfrom the military prison. But the civil lawyers refused to take his caseas soon as they heard about the conflict with the army. Some of them assaultedus refusing to take the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the militarycommandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all thepossible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights organizations,Sharansky’s Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobodycouldn’t or didn’t want to help us. Then we decided to send a letter toAmnesty International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist LevG. - has contacted Amnesty International and later submitted several faxesto them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty Internationalthey released our son from the military prison.

We couldn’t live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to ourson there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be arrestedagain if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us wasto escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee claimants. Weflied to Montreal in November, 1994.

We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claimto the immigration board (committee). We also
sincerely described what happened to us in our claim's atory without anydistortion or exaggeration. But what happened to
us in the immigration courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings isjust incredible...

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 (ifnot - they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated us).
3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's confirmation of ourcomplain) were mentioned as incomplete proof of particular events, whenin reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documentswhich relate to these events were ignored.
4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked aninsinuating question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatableconterargument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was repeated -but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same questioncould be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the same answer againand again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusationsto force me to change my answer. It’s clear that such a method violatesmoral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant undersuch an illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration.
5) Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shutedus down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later based theirconclusions not on our answers but on their own statement posing it asour - not their - words.
6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights toappeal (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 normsof democracy or by my aproval of the democracy laws. It is absolutely clearthat our case was treated not according to Canadians laws but accordingto the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belongnot to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither beingordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made thecourtroom a part of Israel's territory.
8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn’t an investigation in ourcase but a pure pro-Israel’s propaganda. It’s goal wasn’t to detect whetheror not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the imageof Israel as a “good” country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalizationof 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 thevery fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude torefugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally, noton which country they flied.
9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rightsdefense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognizedhuman rights.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite informationabout us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle:Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimantescaped from.
11)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officerdistorted and sometimes falsified the documents.
12) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it’s dependents orby it’s embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarilyrepresented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documentsthat were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,declarations, and so on - weren’t treated as equal to Israeli propagandapapers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored:As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presentedby Israeli government can’t be treated as an arbitrary source: BecauseIsrael is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents may be consideredas 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 onething to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contraryduring the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related, and G. wascalled 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 situationin Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incrediblyagressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or to exterminateus.
14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations whenit was clear that such an answer is absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes"or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let usspeak.
15) Despite our son’s mental illness and the evidence that he can not beasked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressivemanner. We understood that questions which she asked him were nothing morethen a pure humiliation.
16) Requests which the immigration officer has submitted to Israel weren'tjustified or necessary.