N04/49665 [2005] RRTA 378 (16 February 2005)

The Applicant is a citizen of Israel. He last arrived in Australia as a visitor and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

In accordance with section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), the Minister may only grant a visa if the Minister is satisfied that the criteria prescribed for that visa by the Act and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) have been satisfied. The criteria for the grant of a Protection (Class XA) visa are set out in section 36 of the Act and Parts 785 and 866 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Subsection 36(2) of the Act provides that:

'A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

a non-citizen in Australia who is the spouse or a dependant of a non-citizen who:

Subsection 5(1) of the Act defines the 'Refugees Convention' for the purposes of the Act as 'the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951' and the 'Refugees Protocol' as 'the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967'. Australia is a party to the Convention and the Protocol and therefore generally speaking has protection obligations to persons defined as refugees for the purposes of those international instruments.

Article 1A(2) of the Convention as amended by the Protocol relevantly defines a 'refugee' as a person who:

'owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.'

The time at which this definition must be satisfied is the date of the decision on the application: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Singh (1997) 72 FCR 288.

The definition contains four key elements. First, the applicant must be outside his or her country of nationality. Secondly, the applicant must fear 'persecution'. Subsection 91R(1) of the Act states that, in order to come within the definition in Article 1A(2), the persecution which a person fears must involve 'serious harm' to the person and 'systematic and discriminatory conduct'. Subsection 91R(2) states that 'serious harm' includes a reference to any of the following:

significant economic hardship that threatens the person's capacity to subsist;

denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist;

denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist.

In requiring that 'persecution' must involve 'systematic and discriminatory conduct' subsection 91R(1) reflects observations made by the Australian courts to the effect that the notion of persecution involves selective harassment of a person as an individual or as a member of a group subjected to such harassment (Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62; (1989) 169 CLR 379 per Mason CJ at 388, McHugh J at 429). Justice McHugh went on to observe in Chan, at 430, that it was not a necessary element of the concept of 'persecution' that an individual be the victim of a series of acts:

'A single act of oppression may suffice. As long as the person is threatened with harm and that harm can be seen as part of a course of systematic conduct directed for a Convention reason against that person as an individual or as a member of a class, he or she is "being persecuted" for the purposes of the Convention.'

'Systematic conduct' is used in this context not in the sense of methodical or organised conduct but rather in the sense of conduct that is not random but deliberate, premeditated or intentional, such that it can be described as selective harassment which discriminates against the person concerned for a Convention reason: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim [2000] HCA 55; (2000) 204 CLR 1 at [89] - [100] per McHugh J (dissenting on other grounds). The Australian courts have also observed that, in order to constitute 'persecution' for the purposes of the Convention, the threat of harm to a person:

'need not be the product of any policy of the government of the person's country of nationality. It may be enough, depending on the circumstances, that the government has failed or is unable to protect the person in question from persecution' (per McHugh J in Chan at 430; see also Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 per Brennan CJ at 233, McHugh J at 258)

Thirdly, the applicant must fear persecution 'for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion'. Subsection 91R(1) of the Act provides that Article 1A(2) does not apply in relation to persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in that Article unless 'that reason is the essential and significant reason, or those reasons are the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution'. It should be remembered, however, that, as the Australian courts have observed, persons may be persecuted for attributes they are perceived to have or opinions or beliefs they are perceived to hold, irrespective of whether they actually possess those attributes or hold those opinions or beliefs: see Chan per Mason CJ at 390, Gaudron J at 416, McHugh J at 433; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 570-571 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ.

Fourthly, the applicant must have a 'well-founded' fear of persecution for one of the Convention reasons. Dawson J said in Chan at 396 that this element contains both a subjective and an objective requirement:

'There must be a state of mind - fear of being persecuted - and a basis - well-founded - for that fear. Whilst there must be fear of being persecuted, it must not all be in the mind; there must be a sufficient foundation for that fear.'

A fear will be 'well-founded' if there is a 'real chance' that the person will be persecuted for one of the Convention reasons if he or she returns to his or her country of nationality: Chan per Mason CJ at 389, Dawson J at 398, Toohey J at 407, McHugh J at 429. A fear will be 'well-founded' in this sense even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent but:

'no fear can be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention unless the evidence indicates a real ground for believing that the applicant for refugee status is at risk of persecution. A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation.' (see Guo, referred to above, at 572 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ)

In accordance with section 418 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal was given the Department's file relating to the Applicant. The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give oral evidence. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Hebrew language. The Applicant was unrepresented.

According to the details in his original application the applicant completed his education to a secondary level. It would appear that he then did his military service. He said that he had been discharged early. He said that this had been due to his political opinion. Thereafter the Applicant said that he had pursued a number of occupations, completed a diploma and most recently had been employed as a technician prior to his departure for Australia. He said that he had always lived at the same address.

In answers to the questions on the form seeking his reasons for claiming to be a refugee the Applicant said that he had left Israel because he was in grave danger of being harmed or killed because of his political opinion that the Palestinians should be given the right to return to Israel and be given back the occupied land. The Applicant said that he was not a draft dodger or deserter but he said that he believed that the military might recall him deliberately to place him in harm's way and ensure that he would be killed because of his political views. He said, however, that, as referred to above, he believed he had been discharged from the Army prematurely because of his political views. He said that he had been beaten up by his fellow soldiers because of his political views while doing his military service and had been regularly in the infirmary. He said that his commanding officer had also beaten him up when he had complained to him and he said that when he had reported this to the police they had dragged him across the counter and had punched and beaten him severely and told him to keep out of their way otherwise they would kill him.

The Applicant said that he had been assaulted several times in Israel by ordinary Israelis, twice by the Israeli police and three times by 'military' for voicing his political views in public, at social gatherings and at synagogue. He said that the military and the police would be unlikely to protect him and he referred to his claims that he had previously been assaulted by the army and the police. He said that he feared persecution for reasons of his political opinion and his membership of a 'particular social group' for the purposes of the Convention but the particular social group he identified was 'a group of people with political views and opinion being extremely pro-Palestinian'. He said that he was sure that if he were to return to Israel he would suffer serious harm or even death because the authorities had already 'established state of animosity toward me'.

In his application for review the Applicant expanded a little on his political views. He said that besides being of the opinion that the Palestinians 'and Arabs' should be given the right of return to Israel and that they should be given back the land occupied by Israel 'in 1948 and 1967', he said that he supported the demolishing or stopping of the security fence or wall going up 'throughout Israel to divide the Israelis and Arabs under the guise of security preparations'. He attached press clippings about Israel's West Bank barrier and alleged Mossad spies in New Zealand and a review article regarding the modern history of Israel. He said that before he had left he had been 'excessively vocal around and about Israel regarding the wall construction throughout Israel - and the other views - and the Israeli slowness that effectively means nothing is done' and he said that he had been beaten up several times after his ticket to Australia had been booked and that he had 'decided to get out before it was too late'. He said that in addition he had vigorously agitated for Israeli settlements in the occupied areas to cease immediately and for this land to be given back to the rightful non-Israeli owners.

The Applicant repeated that he believed that if he were to return to Israel 'in today's political climate' he would be killed or seriously harmed by 'Israeli Jews, police or military and Arabs who are right wing' due to his views and political opinions. He said, in addition, that he did not want to return to Israel 'due to the current state of tension and fighting between the Palestinians and the Israelis that I believe will not be resolved for many more years with an extreme escalation in the violence and current slaughter' (the Applicant's emphasis). He said that there was 'very low tolerance of dissenters and people with VERY strong left wing attitudes and zero Israeli tolerance of Palestinian resistance' (again the Applicant's emphasis).

The Applicant repeated that he had been attacked several times and he said that he had been perceived by the attackers 'to be gaining significant support and as a troublemaker for them and their efforts in suppressing pro-Arab and Palestinian support'. He said that this persecution was instigated by 'cronies' of the police and military in Israel who were given special preference for assisting and aiding the authorities by means of intimidation and being informers against their own people. He said that prior to his departure he had been 'acutely aware of familiar faces in different places and on several occasions that I was beaten saw these people talking to my attackers prior to attacks'. He said that the Israeli police, military authorities and Secret Services were well known and notorious for underhand illegal tactics. The Applicant also said that he had been 'helping to organise local support for my views all over Israel and was being followed everywhere and monitored'.

The Applicant said that several senior Israeli Army and Air Force officers and soldiers had recently been charged or dismissed from the Israeli Army for the same political views but he said that his case could not be compared to their cases because they had been in the public eye. He suggested that if this had not been the case it was probable that they would have been somehow eliminated. The Applicant stressed that he was not a conscientious objector and never had been one and that he had been discharged from the military, supposedly on other grounds. He repeated that he might be called up although he had been discharged. He said that he enclosed his army discharge but it was not enclosed.

The Applicant provided further copies of the press clippings he had produced previously, a copy of a briefing paper on violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, press clippings regarding the shooting of peace activists near Nablus with rubber bullets, an article claiming to spell out 'Sharon's real plan', a press clipping relating to Israel's arrest of 13 UN staff in Gaza on suspicion of terrorist activities in October 2004, two Amnesty International documents relating to the destruction of Palestinian houses inside the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, and a statement from one of the signatories to the so-called Israeli pilot's letter (one of several letters sent to the authorities by different groups outlining their refusal to serve in the Occupied Territories).

At the hearing before me the Applicant confirmed that he had done his military service immediately after leaving school. He confirmed that he had served for less than a full period of 36 months. He said that he had then worked until he had left Israel to come to Australia. He said that after he had returned to Israel from Australia the following year, he had left again, travelling to a second country (Country A)(according to his passport, which he produced at the hearing). He said that he had spent several months in Country A and after he had returned to Israel he had studied for about a year. He said that he had also taken part in demonstrations and rallies. The Applicant said that he thought that the course had finished in a particular month and he had then worked in a number of positions. He said that he had had his last job for a year and two months, until he had left Israel to come to Australia.

I noted that according to the details in his passport the Applicant had visited Country B at one point in time. The Applicant said that this had only been for three or four days. I noted that he had stopped in several countries on his way to Australia. The Applicant said that this had been the plane trip. He said that he had also visited another country for a couple of days in the past.

The Applicant said that he had not been a member of any organisation. He said that the demonstrations in which he had taken part had been organised by the 'Peace Now' movement and the Arab party 'Hadash', which he said he thought was a communist party. I noted that in his application for review the Applicant had said that he had been helping to organise local support for his views all over Israel and that he could have been perceived to be gaining significant support. The Applicant said that he had distributed flyers and other material on behalf of the 'Peace Now' movement, the Meretz Party and other movements. He said that they had gathered some support. He said that he had done this from the time he had been doing his military service until now. He said that he had distributed flyers in various localities in Israel and he had also participated in demonstrations at checkpoints in a number of cities. He said that he had also collected signatures on petitions and had handed out brochures.

The Applicant said that as a result of his political activities he had been beaten up and he had been involved in violent confrontations with the police and others in which he had suffered bodily harm, sometimes severe bodily harm. I asked the Applicant when this had occurred and he said that during his army service he had got into fistfights with his fellow soldiers. He said that one of the officers had also beaten him up and had told him to go away or things might get worse. He said that he used to hide in the doctors' quarters. He said that during demonstrations people had got annoyed at them and had become violent. He said that this had happened during all the periods when he had been in Israel.

I asked the Applicant to be a little more specific. He said that at a demonstration several years previously in a named location organised by Peace Now he had been involved in a confrontation with people opposed to their views. He said that he had been on the receiving end of the violence. He said that people of a right-wing orientation had tried to break up the demonstration. He said that when he had gone to the police to complain they had hit him. I put to the Applicant that if a demonstration by Peace Now had been broken up by right-wing people this would have been on the public record and he would have been able to produce evidence of it. The Applicant said that he thought that it had been in the newspapers but he had had no way of producing them.

I noted that the Applicant had said that this had been some years ago and I asked him about anything which had happened since. He said that when they had discussed political moves the Government was proposing in gatherings at synagogue he had got into arguments and people opposed to his political views had become violent. He said that he believed that he had been the victim of premeditated violence on other occasions when he had been the victim of violence when he had been participating in rallies and handing out brochures. I asked the Applicant whether there was any incident to which he wished to refer me specifically apart from the incident to which he had already referred which had taken place several years ago. The Applicant referred to his evidence that he had been beaten up by his commanding officer when he had complained about being beaten up by his fellow soldiers and that the police had also become violent when he had complained about this incident to them. He agreed that this had been when he had been doing his military service.

The Applicant agreed that this had been before he had come to Australia the first time. He said that he had left Israel because he had been hoping that things would settle down. He said that when he had returned to Israel he had remained there for several months but he had found that things had not changed a great deal. He said when he had started studying, he had moved out of home into his own flat. He said that things had been going all right but when he had started his activities again the problems had recommenced. I noted that the Applicant had been to the several other countries and he could have applied for refugee status in any of these places but he had apparently chosen not to do so. The Applicant said that he had been in Country A many years ago and at that time he had not had any intention of leaving Israel. He said that it had been during the period after that, when he had been going to demonstrations, that the behaviour of other people had been getting extreme. He said that the countries transited to Australia had just been stopovers. He said that he had not known these places and he had not spent any time there whereas Australia was a place which he knew and he had been happy to apply for refugee status here.

I noted that the Applicant had said in his application for review that he had been beaten up several times after his ticket to Australia had been booked. The Applicant said that this had been when he had been distributing flyers. He said that this had been when he had made the decision to leave. I noted that the Applicant had also said that he had been being followed everywhere and monitored. The Applicant said that when he had gone to all these places he had noticed familiar faces who would talk to people who would then start becoming violent. He said that he had noticed this when he had been handing out flyers on his own. He said that this had been when he had been able to see people's faces whereas at demonstrations it had been difficult to pick people out in the crowd.

I put to the Applicant that Israel was a parliamentary democracy with a multiparty system and free elections. I put to him that the US State Department had reported that there had been no political killings or politically-motivated disappearances and no reports of political prisoners in 2003. It had said that the press freely addressed public issues and criticised government policies and officials without reprisal. It had likewise said that the law provided for freedom of assembly and association and that the Government generally respected these rights in practice. It had said that during 2003 there had been a number of peaceful demonstrations for and against peace negotiations with the Palestinians. It had also said that a number of local and international human rights groups operated without government restriction (US State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003 in relation to Israel and the occupied territories, Introduction and Sections 1.a, Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life, 1.b, Disappearance, 1.e, Denial of Fair Public Trial, 2.a, Freedom of Speech and Press, 2.b, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, and 4, Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights).

I put to the Applicant that the non-government organisation Freedom House had likewise reported in its annual survey, Freedom in the World 2004 (in relation to 2003) that Israeli citizens could change their government democratically, that press freedom and freedom of assembly and association were respected and that Israel featured a vibrant civic society which included many non-governmental organisations (Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2004 in relation to Israel). I noted that as the Applicant himself had referred to, there were organisations like Peace Now which shared the political views which he claimed to hold and which operated through public campaigns, advertisements, street activities and demonstrations without significant problems (see 'Peace Now - About Us', downloaded from http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=43, accessed 21 December 2004). I put to the Applicant that it was very difficult to accept his claims that he would be in grave danger of being harmed or even killed because of his political views if he returned to Israel now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The Applicant said that this was not entirely correct. He said that they had had the assassination of a Prime Minister because of his political views. He said that there had been demonstrations at the Wall that was being built along the Green Line in which demonstrators had been shot and injured. He said that he himself had not taken part in such demonstrations but he had been hit with a rifle butt in an incident three or four years ago when he had been with a small group of people at a checkpoint on the border with Gaza and he had suffered a broken rib in another incident, about a year ago, when he had been handing out flyers. I asked the Applicant why he had not mentioned these incidents when I had asked him earlier about specific incidents in which he had had problems. The Applicant said that he was anxious and stressed by the situation he was in.

The Applicant said that the incident to which he had referred in which demonstrators had been shot and injured had been near a place called Mevaseret Zion. I noted that the incident in which rubber bullets had been fired at peace activists which had been referred to in the press clippings he had produced had been at Nablus. I noted that this was not the sort of activity in which he himself had claimed to have been involved. The Applicant said that he had just mentioned this to show that it was not entirely correct that people could go about demonstrating freely. He referred also in this context to the 'pilot's letter'. I noted that there were a number of organisations of people refusing to fight in the Occupied Territories (see, for example, 'Shministim - Israeli Youth Refusal Movement', downloaded from http://www.shministim.org/english/about.htm, accessed 21 December 2004; 'Courage to Refuse - Combatant's Letter', downloaded from http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp, accessed 21 December 2004). I put to the Applicant that this suggested that this sort of political protest happened freely in Israel. The Applicant agreed but he said that many people objected to it.

I put to the Applicant that this was part of the interchange of opinion which took place in any democracy. The Applicant said that it was not what you expected in a democratic society if you suffered physical violence from the people who were supposed to protect you like the police and the military. I indicated to the Applicant that I had great difficulty in accepting that he would have met with violence from the police or the military if he had been taking part in demonstrations or other activities organised by Peace Now. I indicated that I likewise had difficulty in accepting that he would have been followed or that informers would have pointed him out to right-wingers if he had been taking part in these sorts of activities. I repeated that the information available to me suggested that these sorts of activities happened freely in Israel. The Applicant said that when people of opposing views came to such demonstrations the people who were supposed to break it up, like the police, did not do so. I noted again that demonstrations both for and against peace negotiations had gone off peacefully in 2003 (US State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003 in relation to Israel and the occupied territories, Section 2.b, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association). The Applicant said that sometimes this was the case but in most cases it was not.

I noted that the Applicant had also said that he might be recalled to army duty so that he would be killed. The Applicant said that officers had stated that people such as himself might get hurt because accidents did happen. I noted that the Applicant had said that he had been discharged from the army early and the stated reason. The Applicant said that this had been what the army had claimed. He said that the officers had not wanted him in the army and they had used this pretext to release him. I noted that it was my understanding that because he had been discharged from the army he would not have any obligation to perform reserve military service (Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 'Israel: Circumstances under which a recruit or a soldier is given a Profile 21', 19 November 1999, ISR33208.E). The Applicant said that in general this was correct but in a crisis situation they could call everyone out, even those who were not normally available for service.

I put to the Applicant that, once again, it was a little difficult for me to accept that they would do this in order to kill him. The Applicant said that this would not happen from high up: it would happen on the initiative of his immediate superiors who wanted to harm him. I noted that such officers would not be able to engineer a situation in which everyone was called up. The Applicant said that there were incidents when people would be called up on a national level but he had not completed his original term of three years military service. I noted that he had said that he had been given a discharge. The Applicant said that this was correct. I asked the Applicant if there was anything further that he wished to add before I closed the hearing. He said that the situation was not exactly as it was portrayed in the media. Things were different on the ground. He said that the situation was becoming less and less democratic. He said that this was not just his opinion but the opinion of people high up who thought similarly.

I accept that the Applicant holds political views opposed to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and to the West Bank barrier. I accept that he took part in demonstrations organised by the 'Peace Now' movement and 'Hadash', that he distributed flyers and other material on behalf of the 'Peace Now' movement, the Meretz Party and other movements and that he also collected signatures on petitions. I accept that the Applicant became involved in fistfights with his fellow soldiers while performing his military service and that he was discharged from the army early, officially for a specified reason but in reality because of his political views. As I put to the Applicant, it is my understanding that because he was discharged early from the army he will not have any obligation to perform reserve military service (Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 'Israel: Circumstances under which a recruit or a soldier is given a Profile 21', 19 November 1999, ISR33208.E). The Applicant said that in general this was correct but in a crisis situation they could call everyone out, even those who were not normally available for service. As I put to the Applicant, I do not accept that it would be possible for his immediate superiors to engineer such a general call-up in order to kill him, as he claimed he feared would occur. The Applicant expressly stated that he was not a conscientious objector, a draft dodger or a deserter. I do not accept, therefore, that, if he were to be recalled to military service in a crisis situation when there was a general call-up, this would amount to persecution for the purposes of the Convention, notwithstanding his political views.

The Applicant claims that on a number of occasions he was either physically harmed by the authorities or they failed to prevent him from being harmed by others in a situation where it would have been their duty to do so. He claims that when he was performing his military service his commanding officer beat him up and that when he reported this to the police they dragged him across the counter and punched and beat him severely and told him to keep out of their way otherwise they would kill him. I note that this incident took place before the Applicant came to Australia the first time, and likewise before he went to the Country A, the following year. The Applicant said that he had had no intention of leaving Israel at this time and he said that it had been during the period after that, when he had been going to demonstrations, that the behaviour of other people had been getting extreme. The Applicant claims that several years ago he took part in a demonstration organised by Peace Now in a particular location. He says that people of a right-wing orientation tried to break up the demonstration and that when he went to the police to complain they hit him. The Applicant claims that he was hit with a rifle butt in an incident three or four years ago when he was with a small group of people at a checkpoint on the border with Gaza and that he suffered a broken rib in another incident, about a year ago, when he was handing out flyers. He claims that he was beaten up several times when distributing flyers after his ticket to Australia had been booked.

As I put to the Applicant, the information available to me indicates that Israel is a country where political opinions like the Applicant's can be freely expressed. In 2003, for example, there were a number of peaceful demonstrations both for and against peace negotiations with the Palestinians (US State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003 in relation to Israel and the occupied territories, Section 2.b, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association). There are a number of organisations like the organisation Peace Now which operate through public campaigns, advertisements, street activities and demonstrations without significant problems (see 'Peace Now - About Us', downloaded from http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=43, accessed 21 December 2004). The Applicant referred to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and to incidents in which rubber bullets have been used in dealing with demonstrators.

I accept that people with opposing opinions may attend demonstrations organised by groups like Peace Now but I do not accept that, as the Applicant said, most such demonstrations do not go off peacefully nor do I accept that the police would not intervene if there were to be a violent confrontation at such a demonstration. I prefer the independent evidence which indicates that the Government generally respects the right to freedom of assembly and that demonstrations by organisations like Peace Now have occurred without significant problems (US State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003 in relation to Israel and the occupied territories, Section 2.b, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association; Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2004 in relation to Israel; 'Peace Now - About Us', downloaded from http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=43, accessed 21 December 2004). I do not accept that there is a real chance that the Applicant will meet with violence at the hands of the police or the military while taking part in such peaceful demonstrations nor that there is a real chance that the police will not intervene to protect demonstrators from suffering harm at the hands of those holding opposing political views. I likewise do not accept that there is a real chance that the Applicant will be followed or that informers will point the Applicant out to right-wingers while he is handing out flyers or participating in demonstrations organised by 'Peace Now' or similar organisations which are active in Israel. As I put to the Applicant, I consider on the basis of the independent evidence available to me (referred to above) that this sort of political activity takes place freely in Israel. I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will be persecuted for reasons of his political opinion if he returns to Israel now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

I am not satisfied that the Applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason if he returns to Israel. It follows that he is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Consequently the Applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act for the grant of a protection visa nor is he the spouse or a dependant of a person who holds a protection visa as required by paragraph 36(2)(b).

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa.