There are a few regulars to this site who I believe can speak and read Hebrew. It would be a tremendous service to this community if the following story and its details could be confirmed. If this is true, it is a tremendous victory and a major vindication for those of us who have opposed these measures and been highly suspicious of the mRNA injection program that so many countries are engaged in promoting and even forcing, even if by inversion of force. (We won’t make you take it, but we won’t take our hand away from your mouth and nose unless you do.)
Below the English article taken from America’s Front Line Doctors:
After the State of Israel failed to satisfactorily respond to Thursday’s Supreme Court order to provide a reason why the Special Authorities Regulations for Dealing With the Novel Coronavirus restricting exit from and entry into Israel, and restricting operation of airports and flights, should not be cancelled, the Court today overruled the limits imposed by the government on the total number of passengers allowed to enter Israel by air each day.
The petition that led to the ruling was written by Attorney Batya Sachs and submitted by the firm of Sachs-David-Price-Hegedish.
The 3,000 passenger daily limit will end on Saturday, March 20th.
A three-judge panel issued the ruling, excoriating the government over its handling of COVID-era air travel.
Arutz Sheva‘s David Rosenberg reports the court also ruled as illegal the requirement for travelers who lack both vaccination and recovery certificates to receive special permission to travel from a government committee, eliminating the need to receive Exceptions Committee approval. Those seeking to leave Israel after this coming Saturday will not be required to receive Exceptions Committee permission.
The justices, led by chief justice Esther Hayut, blasted the government over the way it adopted the restrictions, saying the decisions were made without reference to relevant data.
“In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”
The Court also deplored the restrictions themselves, writing in the ruling that the limits constitute “an assault on the very heart of the legal right to enter Israel and to leave it, and other rights that are at the heart of the fabric of life in democratic societies.”
“It seems that instead of investing the effort and resources to enforce isolation, the violation of which is at the center of fears of variant outbreaks, the government preferred to impose a regime on entry to and departure from Israel that is easier to do, but much more seriously harms basic rights.”
Meanwhile, Attorney Ruth Machnes Suchovolsky, whose law office submitted a claim to the International Criminal Court in the Hague that the Israel government is guilty of violating the Nuremberg Code and committing crimes against humanity in its vaccination campaign said lawyers from around the world are turning to their offices, asking to join the complaint in the Hague: “Those same lawyers from around the world recognize the fact that Israel is a country where an experiment was conducted, and fear that their countries will also be forced to be exposed to the experiment,” she said. “The names of the lawyers and the countries joining will be announced later.”
The law office Monday also sent a letter to Pfizer demanding an investigation regarding the Pfizer-Netanyahu agreement, emphasizing section 4.2.6 that discusses cancelling the agreement as soon as a public investigation is opened. Copies were sent to the FDA, the U.S. Attorney General, Members of Congress, and the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Thank you MissPiggy
This seems to be a good time to repost the Holocaust survivor’s assessment of the situation:
Oz-Rita offered the following comment about the video above:
WOW ! just simply WOW !!!
I always suspected those, who wear the mask in places where it is not mandatory, as people who would have been among the eager first ones to lift their right arm in an early Hitler Salute. That is until I heard this amazing lady say, at minute 15.15:
” …Mandatory masks are an insidious psychological weapon, they demean our dignity as free human beings…[…]…they are the symbolic equivalent of the Yellow Star …”
The few times when I could not avoid wearing “a mask”, (Doctor’s surgery, public transport), I felt totally ashamed.
I am just reading “I will Bear Witness 1933 – 1941” Victor Klemperer’s Diary of the Nazi Years (I highly recommend it). I am only in the year 1933, but in the introduction I read:
“….The climax of the indignities to which Jews still living in Germany were forced to submit was the Yellow Star, the wearing of which became compulsory on September 19, 1941…..[…]…. For days Klemperer was unable to summon up the courage to leave the Jews’ House and go out into the street with the yellow star displayed on his chest….”
It’s tempting to compare the 1930ies with the 2020ies….
Another worthy comment from Peter B.
Wow, indeed.
I watched the Video with Eva Sharav 3 times over the last few days, and every time my spine tingles and cold sweat breaks out listening to her.
Julian Assange has said that the Internet is a tool for Oppression, or something like that, but think about what they could do without us being able to communicate with each other all over the World?
I tried the other day to convince my mother to read Klaus Schwab’s Book “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”.
Although to no avail.
I compared that book with Hitlers “Mein Kampf”.
He also told the World about his Plans in that one and NOBODY really believed that it would be implemented.
They had to learn the Hard Way the ways of their error.
She mentions the Hippocratic oath. Doctors haven’t taken that for years, I think it was removed when abortion became legal.
One statement that I found particularly chilling: “Whenever Doctors join forces with government and deviate from their personal professional clinical commitment to do no harm to the individual, medicine can then be perverted from a healing humanitarian profession to a murderous apparatus.”
She talks about euphemisms to cover the reality of what’s being done.
In Canada we have just had legislation to expand MAID (medical assistance in dying) to include people who are not in the last stages of dying, the mentally ill and others.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this can be used to get rid of the unwanted.
Years ago when there was the campaign to make abortion legal, it was said that it would be “safe, rare and legal.” I remember those in opposition saying that it would lead to euthanasia, and they were said to be exaggerating. Now here we are. What’s next?
I have checked the Hague’s website and not found any mention of this. It may not have been entered yet or it may not be something that would typically be made available to the public or etc, but thought it worth noting.