several states in the U.S. to let him construct
      execution machinery for their prisons.
      Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for
      self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no
      academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present
      themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His
      expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work
      experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events
      following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New
      York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in
      Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on
      an obscure and never tested state law saying that people
      working in areas involving public safety could not present
      themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such
      by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact
      that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that
      designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area
      involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of
      doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley,
      Crown Publishing 1992)
      But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his
      misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney
      General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
      terminated his contract after determining that his
      machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners
      unnecessary pain.
      The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's
      having testified against the Florida prison system when an
      inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the
      basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel
      and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The
      Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if
      Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,
      he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and
      career threatening action might have brought great financial
      penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by
      this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair
      shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only
      an excuse given which has no basis in reality.
      Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with
      fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had
      only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not
      licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In
      June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely
      have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am
      not and have never been registered as a professional
      engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself
      as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
      agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the
      title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the
      Leuchter report.
      See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at
      any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but
      only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely
      represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even
      illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer
      unless one would seriously make the case that this involves
      public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and
      advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's
      comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on
      ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The
      difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is
      not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"
      (Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other
      locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally
      certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many
      states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)
      to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the
      certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of
      blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal
      importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects
      involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,
      which is directed toward insuring rapid death!
      Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.
      Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the
      case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has
      nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do
      with work in Massachussets.
      Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the
      Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,
      "Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his
      business in violation of Massachusetts law should
      serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."
      A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way
      discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of
      justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred
      screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a
      law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of
      this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that
      report, data later supported by several other sources whose
      qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is
      pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who
      threaten his livelihood.
      David Thomas, 2/28/97
      CODOH can be reached at:
      Box 439016/P-111
      San Diego, CA, USA 92143
      Comments from Fred Leuchter
      Dear David Thomas,
      Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely
      true.
      The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,
      although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The
      Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial
      would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an
      agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
      things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or
      change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's
      dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual
      promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the
      Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he
      would not break the law by saying things or doing things he
      had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never
      admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply
      agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his
      life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not
      broken the law.
      Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of
      people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge
      Court.
      Fred Leuchter
      4/5/99
      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
      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