ГУЛаг Палестины

in 1991 was not our freewill immigration to Israel but a forcible deportation to Israel executed by both

communist and Israeli authorities (see Document #2). Our removal to a country we do not belong to and

which citizenship was thrust on us against our free will is immoral and inhuman. To extradite us to Israel

means to return us back to captivity.

During more then 3 years I was refused a special permission, which is required for immigrants, to leave Israel (listen

to my 1-st hearing's recording). In supported documents I explain why I did not mention that in my refugee claim but

only during the hearings (see p.1 of this Document). We quit Israel with such extreme difficulties that we never

could leave it any more if removed there, and could not fly persecutions any more. We, adults, and even our children

could stay in captivity there to the rest of our lives!

If we would be removed back to Israel extreme and most vulnerable sanctions could be adopted against us there.

Such sanctions not just highly expected, but are obvious since Israeli authorities already practiced extreme

administrative pressure on us in 1991-1994. There were next administrative sanctions.

A). a) Refusal to give my wife, and me permission to work in our professions. b) Refusal to give me an employment

authorization at all after 1992.

1. We were not given an appropriate language course as all fresh immigrants.

2. The Ministry of Culture and Education refused to make equivalents of my wife's, and mine diplomas, when they

had to do that automatically according to Israeli rules. I have already presented all material evidences to the

Immigration Board, and the board did not express any doubt in these documents authenticity. That fact was also

mentioned during our immigration hearings.

3. Without these equivalents, we were not legitimate for a permission to work in our professions, as well as for the

most of the professional courses available.

4. I was legitimate to enter only one course - "Talpiot", - which was denied me. The reason of the denial was not

given.

My protests and demands to provide me with a reason of the denial were lost without notice. Maitre Stanley Levin, the

only Israeli lawyer who agreed to defend me in Israel, composed a letter to the Minister of Culture and Education Mr.

Amnon Rubinshtein. Maitre S.Levin's letter and Mr. A. Rubinshtein's response were presented to the IRB (see

Documents # 48 in Supplements). That topic was widely discussed during my immigration hearings; the

Immigration Board expressed no doubts that this conflict took place in reality. In the same time the commissioners did

attempts to misrepresent this event and to place it in dependence of mentioned in my wife's Israeli eternal passport

nationality. Maitre Dore, who replaced my main lawyer during the time of the hearings, did a mistake, allowing the

commissioners to lead him in that question. In reality, I would reject "Talpiot's" administration demands to show my

wife's passport-related nationality even if it was marked as "Jewish": because for the people like me such a demand

was disgracing and racist. And I do not think that this little incident was the real reason of the refusal. But I could not

name the "reason" because the term "political persecutions" is too abstract for the commissioners.

5. The Ministry's of Labor governmental Labor Exchange refused to register me as unemployed after the first

accommodative trial period in Israel. Israeli regulations by then put some restrictions on employers to employ a

person who was not registered by the governmental labor exchange. In reality, it was equal to a refusal of an

employment authorization. In the same time this refusal prevented us from getting any social assistance, too. (See

letter from Maitre S. Levin to the Labor Exchange administration: Supplements, Document # 49).

(This also was discussed during the refugee hearings).

6. When - in spite of that - I had found an official job and was employed, and my wife was employed, too, we were

paid less then the minimum wage. We had to be paid by the government an additional amount of money till the level

of the income security, but were refused.

7. We struggled till our last day in Israel for the right to obtain an official explanation in writing of the refusal to register

us at labor exchange, to pay us welfare, and to get an adjustment till the subsisting minimum, which had to be paid us

according to the law. We demanded to present us the reasons of all these refusals, but we did not succeed in our

demands...

8. We also turned to the Civil Court, and the court recognized me as an unemployed. But the labor's exchange

administration refused to register me even then, in spite of the Civil Court's decision. (See this decision in

Supplements, Document #50).

All these above-mentioned items were mentioned during our refugee hearing but the commissioners avoided evaluating them in context of

our refugee claim but transferred the discussions to the demagogical and political spheres.

This justify the next question: was it a refugee hearing or it was a political process or a pro-Israeli propaganda forum?

9. My wife, and me - we turned to a number of personalities, organizations and institutions like lawyer Maitre Stanley

Levin, Histadrut, Sochnut, Civil Court of Petach-Tikva, Ratz (Movement for Human Rights and Peace), municipality of

Petach-Tikva, municipality's legal consultant, and so on, without any result. (See the whole list in Supplements, #8).

This topic was one of the most widely discussed during our refugee hearings!

10. The commissioners could easy conclude that this situation removed our legal status in Israel from us. We became