(This document).
      1. Why the refugee board's decision has formed an additional
      risk of return for my family, and me.
      (This document).
      2. How my lawyer's translator torpedoed my chances to get a positive decision.
      (Document #3).
      4. My observations regarding the hearings and the negative decision (Document # 3).
      (Group of Documents #4).
      5. My observations regarding the text of the negative decision ("Conclusive Decision").
      (Document # 5).
      6. My final statement.
      (This document, paragraph 1.7.).
      In any decision in our case I ask you to take into consideration the next documents, which I have submitted on November
      the 7-th, 1997, for post-determination revue.
      7. Adjustment to my refugee claim as an essential explanation of that risk.
      (Document # 2).
      8. List of supporting documents.
      (Document # 6).
      9. Supplements.
      (Group of Documents # 7).
      10.List of Organizations.
      (Document AC)
      INTRODUCTION
      Introduction.1. There are some important, from my point of view, details, which never appeared in my refugee claim.
      My advisers were strongly opposed to the next passages.
      a) Anything that could throw a shadow to the state's of Israel good image.
      b) Statements, which would mention Israeli army.
      c) Any claims, which could include politics or politically motivated persecutions.
      Introduction.2. They said (may be, indirectly) that the influence of Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said
      that by mentioning about the violations of Russian speaking people' human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in
      Israeli army, or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered in Israel, we could make the commissioners just
      furious. They could accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which became very popular when an excuse must be
      found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.
      Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me, partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even
      better then before, that they were right, and I must completely recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could
      understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le Brune, recommendations were very wise. In the same time my lawyer's
      translator inserted 2 statements into my refugee claim, which I never authorized her to insert and which were in
      complete contradiction to my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a statement that I was a well-known dissident in
      ex-USSR. The 2-nd is a declarative passage about slavery. In the Document #3 you could read more about this.
      Introduction.4. Suspending some information from entering my refugee claim I did it because I was afraid that the IRB members - instead of defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".
      Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's translator's distortions and because of
      commissioners' aggressive behavior) I was forced to mention such things, which I decided not to mention before.
      When it became clear that the commissioners were extremely partial towards us, and that we had no what to loose,
      all three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any more.
      Introduction.6. In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not
      recommend to mention, were accessible for the Immigration Board as others (besides my main refugee claim)
      documents in my file. I handed them over to my lawyer, and he adjusted them to my file before or between the
      hearings. It means that the information, which I enter now in Document # 2, is not new, and was in my immigration
      file before. In the same time, it was up to my lawyer to share this information or not. Recently I took all documents,
      which were in my file, away from my lawyer, including letters to Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in
      Supplements), and others. My lawyer's notes were written on top of them, what you can see on one of the copies. It
      means that I have rights to mention them now because by time of our refugee hearings they were accessible for the
      commissioners because were part of my immigration file.
      1
      1.1. In this document, I am going to explain, prove and show, why and how all my family members, and I, would face
      risk to life, extreme sanctions and inhuman treatment not just because of the danger for us in general, but also
      because of the refugee board members' actions.
      Please, do not make a final decision in my case without studying all supporting documents, because they content the
      main argumentation about this risk.
      1.2. This risk of return to Israel has been increased during our residency in Canada because of the next actions of
      IRB members.
      A). IRB, assigned to our file, contacted Israel and informed Israelis about our refugee claim in Canada (see Group of
      documents # 4, Document # 3, p.p. 1,2,3; Document # 1, page 1, paragraph # 3, point 5), also p.2, point
      11), also p.3, point 8); and also Supplements, Documents # 6, 7). That would increase the possibility of
      vengeance to us from Israeli authorities.
      B). Even if a definite information - that the embassy of Israel in Canada could already know about the content of our
      immigration file - is wrong, sooner or later they would know it. Trying to find defense and justice, I have submitted a
      short description of our immigration hearings and of the final IRB' negative decision to hundreds of human rights
      organizations and to thousands of other destinations. I made them available on Internet for the same purposes. So,
      Israelis know them, too, anyway.
      C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and the immigration officer instead of defining whether or not we could
      face persecutions in Israel (as we claimed), concentrated on accusing us as if it was a criminal court. They
      characterized me as an exaggerator and defamator, dangerous (they do not use this word but it is the only
      characteristic of what they meant) to the state of Israel* (see commentaries in the end of this part). Their insinuations that I turned to innumerous places in Israel, including human rights organizations, MP's, police, Amnesty International (see the list of them in Supplements, Document # 8; see also copies of documentary proof of my appeals to
      various organizations in Supplements, Documents # 9,10,11,12) not because I looked for protection but to
      "spread slender about Israel"** (see comments 2 at the end of that part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here (in Canada) they were used as an excuse to deny our refugee claim, and the negative decision
      was logically presented as a "punishment" for "slander" and "exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last
      paragraphs on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs 1, 2). Israeli authorities would consider Montreal's
      "immigration court's" (IRB) decision to define us as enemies of Israel and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading
      order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably, an Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,
      expressed her almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality in such tones and colors, which could
      perfectly correspond to the manners and mentality of Israelis. Their most sensitive feelings would be touched by her
      words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be removed to Israel (please, read the
      whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open threats, including a threat to
      open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).
      D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the negative decision somehow separated me
      from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my family suffering and refused the status only
      because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate me from my family or even take away our
      children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
      (in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
      anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and, probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also because of what the commissioners' did.
      E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we left, to the worse. I present documents (see
      Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist government is not ready to maintain just
      any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to more severe consequences if we would be
      removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes already took place, and the commissioners had to
      know pretty good about that...
      F). Policemen in Israel could still remember my wife's, mother's, and my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry
      of Police and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now, - when in their brief description of my refugee claim members of IRB
      severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments), - how could we turn for defense in Israel any
      more? The IRB members' action made us completely insecure and unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since
      the context of their negative decision is already known to Israeli authorities].
      * The negative decision mentioned the paragraph about slavery in my refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph correspond to a specific tendency in Israel called "kablanut", 3) two newspaper articles, which described "kablanut" and openly denounced it as slavery. (See these articles in Supplements, Doc. #81). An affidavit about the event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me in Israel by Lev Ginsburg (see Supplements, Doc.82). We became victims of extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were respected more then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles and other documents provided by another side were totally ignored. Documents, which demonstrated non-competence and partiality and were provided by the members of Israeli government
      (Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions (Israeli embassy) or committed to Israeli government fundraisers (Dr. Livny) were presented as only reliable and "independent"!
      ** After expressed by IRB members' insinuations that I turned to various organizations and institutions in Israel not for protection but to "spread slander" I could have no protection in Israel any more if removed there. IRB's insinuation is a verdict for non-protection in the state of Israel! How could we go back there now?!
      CHILDREN.
      During our refugee hearings, the commissioners had chances to observe our children.
      They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still not in norm.
      Because of abuses and insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and hyper kineses. It stopped only about one
      year ago. We possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period of refugee hearings the children still had
      impulsive face muscles' contractions and other visual neurological disorders.
      We also had a psychological evaluation at this point concerning Ina.
      From observing our children, the commissioners could understand that because the children are shy and timid they
      could be abused or even killed by Israeli children. That would bring additional danger to their lives. Such children as
      ours have always much more chances to be abused or even killed in the countries with the dominated "east temper".
      Because in spite of the time, which passed since we came from Israel to Canada, both Ina and Marta visually reacted
      to the discussion about their life in Israel with horror and fear, the commissioners had a chance to see how deep the
      psychological trauma affected the children and also how easy such children could become targets for abuses in
      Israel.
      The description of multiple assaults of our children were also ignored by the commissioners. The IBR members also
      probably knew that by the time of our hearings Israeli authorities could take children away from Christian, atheist,
      mixed, or non-traditional Jewish families...
      In the text of their negative decision the IRB members seriously distorted some paragraphs of our refugee claim,
      which described multiple abuses against our children.
      Through all mentioned above (active or passive) actions, the IRB members had shown themselves as people with no
      mercy, open to cruelty and ready to commit abuses themselves. If they had no attention or mercy even towards the
      children, who then they are and how could such people make a decision in our case?!
      WIFE.
      The commissioners had also a chance to observe my wife.
      My wife Alla (look over our refugee claim) suffered very much from multiple abuses, batteries, insults, and
      discrimination in Israel. That all caused already serious damage to her mental and physical health. During first two
      years in Canada, she suffered from the consequences of that damage. (A surgery was done to her in relation with
      what happened to her in Israel; she often cute her hands, stroke herself not on purpose because of her mental
      disorder; once she spent several days in an emergency; by then a danger has threaten her life).
      A psychologist found her mental disorders serious enough. He told us that they came in result of her previous life
      period, what means in result of our life in Israel. (See her medical reports: Supplements, Documents #13, 14,
      15, 16, 17, 18).
      Only about a year and a half ago her mental and physical wounds started to heal, and she came almost completely
      back to norm. But even now more time is needed and the danger of deportation back to Israel has to be liquidated for
      complete improvement of her health.
      During our refugee hearings, the IBR members had to see that she was paralyzed by fear and horror so much that
      hardly could speak. They could see that she was near an emotional collapse, and they had to understand that it must
      be connected with what happened to us in Israel.
      By observing us, by listening to my wife's, and my, replies IBR members could easy understand that we belong to a
      rare type of people, for whom any suppression of their own pride is unbearable. We could become refugee
      claimants and agreed for all the degrading procedures only because of a threat to our lives, only! We care about our
      children lives, and we know that they need us. Otherwise, we would never let a person like Mrs. Judith Malka
      humiliating over us! It was absolutely clear that something really serious (like a threat to our lives) had to happen to
      force people like us to become refugee claimants.
      To ignore their observations the IRB members had not to care about our fate at all. Their indifference demonstrated
      that they came with prepared in advance negative attitude towards all Russian speaking refugees from Israel in
      general. Nothing could change this attitude, no matter who is sitting in front of them... It was visually clear that such a
      partial attitude could not be affected by their emotions, by compassion; or they rather had no emotions, no
      compassion at all...
      Please, read my wife's statement in Group of Documents # 4, Document # 2.
      MY MOTHER.
      Everything that corresponds to my children and my wife corresponds to my mother as well. If the commissioners had
      no mercy towards the children and towards the woman, who suffered so much, then may be they expressed
      compassion towards an old mother who might loose her single son (she told them that her younger son died) if we
      would be removed to Israel? No, they had no shame before an old mother to use their unfair methods and
      demonstrate no sign of a mercy!
      ME
      I am the very person, whom Israelis persecuted long before then I was taken to Israel (see Document #2). I was
      taken to Israel by force, against my will (see Document #2, page 4, paragraphs 2.16., 2.17., and the NOTE).
      When I was in Israel, Israeli State radio (RADIO RECA) called me in one of its auditions (3 December 1993, around
      noon) "a racist." The radio correspondent Daniela Linor gave an opposite meaning to one of my articles (see
      Supplements, Document # 27). In that article ("Israeli (Jewish) Apartheid") I denounced the discriminatory practice
      of Israeli authorities against some of the ethnic minorities, including Buchara origins. If not my good relations with
      some of the Buchara people and my attempts to help some of them to fight discrimination, I could be in a serious
      danger. The community of Buchara is one of the most sensitive and united communities in Israel. This event was
      already discussed during my immigration hearings, but the IRB committee did no comments. One newspaper
      ("Vremja", 5 September 1994, page 18), which published my article "Why Israel is against the Victory Day?", in its
      comment called the public to destroy all my works and presented me as traitor and enemy. It was very well known
      that this newspaper was by then close to the right opposition led by Mr. Netanyagu, and expressed its opinions (see
      the original and its translation in Supplements, Document #28). IRB members did no comments to that, too.
      The same newspaper ("Vremja", 1 August 1994, Supplements, Document # 29) placed an interview with me,
      distorting my words and trying to discredit me. The interviewer, Mr. Mark Kotlarsky, was my friend, and I trusted him.
      But he composed that interview in a humiliating manner, portraying me as a traitor, pathologically tiresome and stupid
      person. Pretending to be half serious - half joking he told about me things, which he never discussed with me and
      which could turn the whole anger of Israeli ultra-patriots against me. He had no personal reasons for that provocation
      and it could be explained only by the involvement of the authorities. (This interview and circumstances, which
      surrounded it, were discussed during my immigration hearings). During one of our immigration hearings Mrs.
      J. Malka, the immigration officer, used non-conventional methods to distort the reason, why I presented this article,
      and did not let me speak. In the same time, she used some information, which I shared with Mr. Mark Kotlarsky only.
      In 1993, I was attacked in Tel-Aviv after my conversation with "MAARIV" and "Yidiot Achronot" correspondent,
      Avraham Pelet. (See my refugee claim). Mrs. J. Malka's attitude towards this event and her "evaluation" of it was the
      same: not to let me speak! Multiple attempts by the governmental structures to confront me with anger of the most
      sensitive and dangerous in anger social and ethnic groups could lead to my death and were equal to assassination
      attempts. Even here, in Montreal, Israelis threaten me through people, whom I knew in Israel (listen to the tapes of
      my last immigration hearing), or via E-mails, or by telephone calls (see Document #30 of Supplements). I also
      presented a letter from Israel to the Immigration Board. This letter also informed about such threats (see my file).
      These threats are not jokes! To send such a person (who was considered by such a sensitive - towards ideological
      opponent - state as Israel as an enemy) backmeans to sign him (me) a death penalty. Know that by sending me back
      to Israel you would kill me! I am writing this just to remind you what you might be responsible for.
      But Mrs. Malka several times threatened me directly during the hearings, one time even suggested that she will start a
      legal procedure against me in civil (or - may be in criminal?) court.
      But if even a politically motivated threat to my life could not exist, even then risk to my life could always exist in Israel
      because a person like me could never accommodate in strictly regulated - ideologically, religiously, ethnically,
      socially, politically, and military - society as Israeli. And it had to be evidently clear to the board! It clearly evaluated
      from the refugee hearing procedures! I had innumerous incidents in Israel, which were already described in my
      refugee claim. It had to be evidently clear to the IRB members (from the background of our conversation) that I could
      add a description of others less or more serious incidents and conflicts, which used to happen to me in Israel
      practically every day. They were caused by my inability to use to growing demands of ultra-orthodox, by my entire
      and psychological incompatibility with the Israeli society, by my softness, which provoked harsh by nature Israelis to
      attack (abuse) me. Often conflicts erupted because I did not understand the tough subordination within the Israeli
      society or could not use to it. In my refugee claim I described only some events, caused by fully developed incidents.
      But there were thousands others, which merely did not developed completely, and if would develop themselves,
      could lead to severe consequences, including my death. Since we left Israel political and social situation there
      became even tenser. It is more possible now that I would not only face the same incidents and conflicts (if removed to
      Israel), as in 1991-94, but more tense, which could soon lead to my death.
      Risk to my life would immediately erupt in Israel not only because of above-mentioned reasons. The commissioners
      could see from my claim and all documents (if they wanted to see) that in Israel the state of my health in 1991-94
      became so bad that it could make me an invalid or cause my death. I possesed multiple medical documents, which
      could illustrate that. In Israel I got a hyper-tonic disease (which - I believe - came as a result of a battery; I gave
      explanations and necessary proofs already during my immigration hearings), I had multiple infections, flues, terrible
      headaches, heart disorders, tics... In 1994 I had such a heart disorder, which was suspected as a minor heart attack. I
      suffered severe heart pains and other hard disorders during 2 weeks, and I was sick much longer. In
      mentioned-above interview Mr. M. Kotliarski wrote about my infarct (heart attack). (See this article in Supplements;
      document # 29). I already presented medical documents to the IRB. I supply you the new copies (Supplements,
      documents #35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40) in terms if they somehow disappeared from my file by the time of the hearings
      or were not presented to the board.
      Danger to my life could be even wider because during our life in Israel there were multiple conflicts with
      doctors-Israelis, and they refused to serve members of my family, and me, several times. We were also expelled from
      medical center "Ramat Verber" in spite of the money, which we paid for membership. Since we came to Canada my
      health improved. But it could not stand stresses of eventual removal and life in a thrusted on me society.
      My life would be under an extreme danger in Israel also because my past life there has already shown that no
      institution, no organization would defend me. I would have no legal or other defense. IBR members could express
      insinuations that I used to turn to many institution and organizations not for protection and help but to "spread
      slander," but they did not want to comment (in their negative decision) the fact of refusals or inability of all these
      institutions and organizations to help me. In reality this fact is one of the most essential. If I was (and would be)
      completely unprotected in Israel - then how would I go back there?
      The Immigration Board members also did not let me speak about my confrontation with Mossad. In reality this
      confrontation might become one of the main threats to my life if I would be removed to Israel. This confrontation has
      begun in my native city (see Document #2). In Warsaw it jeopardized (see the same document, p.p. 4, 5).
      When we were placed in the hotel in Warsaw, our guardians have repeatedly told us that we are going to pay a hard
      price for inviting our Polish friends to the Central railway station. They accused us that we almost destroyed the whole
      operation of transporting the Soviet Jews, and that Warsaw was almost closed as a transit point because of us. Later,
      in airplane, other guardians told us that our flight was postponed for almost two hours (that was true) also because of
      us. I could not by then and can not now verify if there was any real information behind their words, but I am sure that
      there were Mossad men, and they were very angry on us. In Ben Gurion airport, in a room, where all fresh arriving
      males were called, another Mossad man told me that I have to face the full responsibility for what happened in
      Warsaw, and there would be severe consequences for me. He was also angry because of my refusal to answer his
      questions. He told me that he knows that I had problems with KGB. He told also that they know from some of my
      friends (I immediately thought about Rodov) that I used to collect information about KGB. He asked me where I keep
      this information - in my memory or in writing - and asked me to share it with them. He spoke Russian with Hebrew
      accent (probably, studied Russian somewhere), and he has a wound, probably, from the battlefield. He was tired and
      sad, and I felt sympathy to him. But I could not share my observations about KGB with him because I remembered
      that (according to my conclusions and some books) KGB and Mossad worked together. Because of my sympathy to
      him and because I was disoriented, desperate and afraid I could not keep silence. I told that the only KGB man I saw
      in my life close was the chairperson of local KGB in Bobruysk when he came to read a lecture to the Jewish club. He
      asked me who invited him to the club. I told that the chairman of the club, Rodov, invited him. Or he might order
      Rodov to invite him...He wasn't satisfied by my answers. He started to speak to me in a sharp manner, even shouted
      on me. He expressed his anger clear enough and told that because of my refusal to cooperate fully I may be
      contacted later. During the refugee hearings the board members just did not let me speak about that all...
      Some of that facts were not described in my refugee claim or during the hearings because of 3 reasons: my lawyer's
      recomendations(see p.1 of this Document), his translator's sabotage (see Document # 3), or IRB members
      refusal to let me speak (see Group of Documents # 4, Document #1). My lawyer's recommendations were good
      until the IRB members started to use "unconventional" methods and aggressive behavior. Analyzing my conversation
      with Mossad (Shabak) officer at Ben-Gurion airport I came to conclusion that information they could collect some
      additional information about me from my manuscripts, which were confiscated during (after) our flight
      Warsaw-Tel-Aviv (Lod). Protesting against confiscation of some of my belongings I turned to Ben-Gurion's airport
      administration, to other institutions and organizations. You could see a copy of one of my complains composed in
      1991: and, if you would doubt that it was composed in 1991, I could give you the original, which could be checked
      and which age could be determined in one or another way. (See Supplements, Documents # 40, 41, 42).
      I was contacted by Mossad in Israel after the airport's conversation. Defense, suspension of persecutions, and help in
      obtaining prosperity were proposed by then in exchange to suspension of my human rights and journalistic activity.
      To prove that I could present not only a letter from Israel (which was discussed during our last immigration hearing),
      but also other material proofs like business card with the name and telephone number of the person, who contacted
      me, and so on. (Supplements, Document # 43).
      Here are just several examples of how important were the things, which the IRB did not let me to tell. I could give more examples of the most vital for the valuation of my
      case things, which description was blocked by the IRB. They used aggressive behavior, psychological pressure, administrative orders, and even threats for
      preventing me from the particular things' description. In the same time, these things might be critical for the question of not just mine, but all family members' life or
      death!
      One of the most significant indications that the danger to my life always exists in Israel is that Israeli police abused me.