ГУЛаг Палестины

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