Используя свою неограниченную власть и влияние в Канаде, Израиль и еврейские организации в Канаде сначала наводнили Министерство Иммиграции Канады своими людьми: иммиграционными офицерами, служащими, иммиграционными судьями и чиновниками среднего звена, вплоть до министра Иммиграции (Люсьен Робияр). Дела русскоязычных беженцев из Израиля рассматривались комиссиями под председательством судей еврейского происхождения, заядлых сионистов, иногда даже граждан Израиля: Барбарой Бергер, Жаком Лассалем, Дорионом, и другими. На другом структурно-административном уровне - на уровне иммиграционных офицеров - в беженских слушаниях участвовали иммиграционные офицеры еврейского происхождения, ненавистники русских и заядлые сионисты Юдит Малка, Сара Розенцвейг и другие. Многие иммиграционные судьи и иммиграционные офицеры в Монреале напрямую связаны с израильским консульством: как, например, Жак Лассаль, бывший муж бывшей Министра Иммиграции Люсьен Робияр, председатель теневой структуры израильского правительства - организации Израиль-Канада. Чтобы не допустить успеха апелляций несчастных жертв еврейского террора в Федеральном Суде, были задействованы высокие чиновники государственных юридических органов Канады, как, например, господин Розенберг, какие вмешивались в ход разбора в Федеральном Суде жалоб беженцев из Израиля на любой стадии и в любой форме. В Парламенте всю эту тяжелую пирамиду беззаконий поддерживают депутаты-сионисты - Люсьен Робияр, Жак Лассаль, Ирвин Котлер, Леонор Каплан и другие. После Люсьен Робияр на пост Министра Иммиграции снова была поставлена очередная еврейка - Леонор Каплан, пусть более порядочный человек, чем абсолютно беспринципная садистка Робияр, но в силу еврейского происхождения не имеющая возможности противостоять еврейскому давлению и следованию еврейским интересам.
      Чтобы действовать наверняка, еврейские круги привлекли к "охоте на беглых рабов" даже иммиграционных адвокатов - открытых или скрытых сионистов, - стремясь, чтобы поток русскоязычных беженцев попадал именно к этим адвокатам. Эти адвокаты-сионисты, такие, как Джеральд Постельник или Сильвия Левек, брались за беженские дела русских только с одной целью: чтобы дела своих клиентов провалить. Если дело было слишком щекотливое, эти адвокаты шли на подлог, на обман, на что угодно --только бы торпедировать его. Они заявляли в Комиссию по Беженцам, что точно знают, что их клиент (ы) покинул (и) Канаду, и беженский файл закрывали. Сильвия Левек и другие адвокаты-предатели являлись в Комиссию по Беженцам и заявляли, что убедились, что их клиент представляет собой опасность для Канады - и требовали его депортации!!! Если не удавалось полностью подкупить или запугать иммиграционного адвоката, использовали его секретаря, как правило, своего агента, который (ая) уничтожал важные документы, некоторые документы заменял собственноручно изготовленными фальшивками, искажал суть самых важных документов, материалов, показаний. Этим занималась, например, секретарша адвоката Ле Брона Элеонора Бродер, израильская гражданка.
      Одновременно были задействованы сотрудники медицинского отдела Иммиграции и ангажированные Министерством Иммиграции врачи, так называемые иммиграционные врачи. Такие врачи, как, например, Барбара Бжезинска (кстати, родственница бывшего госсекретаря США), "ставили" заведомо ложные диагнозы, умышленно подрывали здоровье своих пациентов, работали в условиях конспиративного сговора с Министерством Иммиграции. Медицинский отдел Иммиграции - Immigration Medical Services (IMS) - вместе с иммиграционными врачами занимались (и занимаются) подлогом, фальсификацией медицинских данных, медицинскими репрессиями против неугодных, и это особенно страшно и неприемлемо.
      В противостоянии бежавшим из Израиля русскоязычным диссидентам использовались шпионские методы. На более высоком уровне были задействованы израильские секретные службы. На более же низком уровне израильско-еврейские круги, противостоящие беженцам из Израиля, пользовались услугами монреальского филиала израильской военизированно-охранной службы Isra Guard. Сам факт того, что подобного рода израильская служба вообще действует в Канаде - вопиющий. Это нарушение суверенитета Канады и вмешательство в ее внутренние дела. Чувствительная, конфиденциальная информация попадает в руки полицейскио-военных и прочих органов государства Израиль - как будто это происходит в внутри самого Израиля. Израиль получает возможность манипулировать самыми ранимыми и деликатными материями в Канаде - как будто Канады не суверенное государство.
      Все эти методы хорошо прослеживаются на примере нескольких беженских дел.
      Вот эти дела (ниже следуют тексты на русском, английском и французском языках):
      Дело семьи Буяновских
      To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.
      Galina Buyanovsky
      175 Sherbrook St.West,
      Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
      CANADA H2X 1X5
      FEDERAL COURT
      Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
      Ontario K1A 0H9
      CANADA
      Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.
      Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a
      non-official letter we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel
      exists, and that Canadian Ministry of Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was
      denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. 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 [ look over her anger declaration
      about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - 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. And this person whose partiality towards the
      Russian-speaking people was already recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from
      Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada.
      For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to
      his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? Why refugees from
      Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?
      Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and
      his best friend now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct!
      And the last question about Mr. La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in
      force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent
      commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel. The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs.
      Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all her employer's clients, distorting
      the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's face and to
      send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most
      favorite sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports,
      and other documents. This trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer.
      Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking
      people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee
      claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came
      from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator
      help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that
      back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
      official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably
      Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more
      detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.
      Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and
      distortion of our words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we
      said that in our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no
      indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking
      immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not
      a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat
      Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No
      wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in
      ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
      obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in
      passports? If so, and also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal
      (at least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As
      an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue - because in Israeli society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that
      there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the
      commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no
      paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the
      source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination
      in our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?
      Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other
      countries. Let me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from
      Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given
      to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to
      school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's
      declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on
      our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
      tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do
      with juridical documents.
      Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for
      example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't
      care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not
      be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"
      as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such
      "evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to
      explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses
      his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In
      other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that for
      h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
      on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,
      precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.
      They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer
      "yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions
      of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family
      Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no
      inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took
      these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same
      document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We
      mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took
      place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made
      efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"
      were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we
      also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit
      A-1 (5.4) mentions 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 the Exhibit
      A-1 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 Exhibit A-1 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 can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
      strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is
      mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any
      juridical document! 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 (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just
      because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat
      "Russians" not like they treat Israelis. 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 hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And
      Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He
      clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government!
      COMMENTS
      1.See Bibliography
      2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
      3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second sentence.
      4.See Bibliography, - #2.
      5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and also - p.p.1,2,3.
      6.See Bibliography, - #3.
      7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the
      children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality.
      BIBLIOGRAPHY
      1. "Une comissaire du statut de rйfugiй accusй de partialitй ", - by Franзois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
      2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December 15-21, 1994.
      3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian
      Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES". "THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And
      also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS").
      August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni.
      "WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
      4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
      To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next Documents:
      1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli
      government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the detainees.
      2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than 'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
      Professor Israel Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
      3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
      and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
      47th Street : Maariv, September 2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York correspondent
      4) American Civil Rights Review http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
      5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
      http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
      6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
      7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
      8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
      9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
      10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
      11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New York.1990.
      12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
      13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
      14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
      SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
      2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
      Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
      11."WASHINGTON POST" 12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG" 14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
      GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18. "EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
      AND ORGANIZATIONS
      ДЕЛО МЕТЕЛЬНИЦКИХ:
      FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
      To Amnesty International's London Office
      Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
      1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
      hearings in our case. 2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
      contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so
      incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the
      immigration officer falsificated Amnesty International's (and other human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6)
      Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded
      accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very
      basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain (and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
      bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will be turned back to Israel.
      We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
      "welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
      to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
      with the Russian-speaking people can not make 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 could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
      newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
      Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
      horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli
      but being a Russian.
      Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
      go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
      thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
      When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
      each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
      single son can not be 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 day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
      have been sent one day later then the date of 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 to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
      Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he