Israel will withdraw from IHR Amendments And Their Position on WHO Health Regulations: Separating Fact from Fiction

The Clock is ticking.......

Hey everyone, if you haven’t signed the demand to reject the IHR amendments, please do so now. Israel has announced that they will withdraw and if we continue to write the countries…You never know if we can convince more countries to withdraw as well!!

JOIN ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES AND ARGENTINA IN EXITING THE WHO AND ESTABLISHING A NEW RESPONSIVE GLOBAL HEALTH COOPERATIVE

Click and Sign:

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/exitwho/

---

The Global Revolt Against WHO Overreach: Why Nations Are Reclaiming Their Health Sovereignty From Big Pharma’s Big Business Takeover And More Un Ethical Experimentation

A Critical Moment for National Independence

As we approach the July 19, 2025 deadline for nations to reject the World Health Organization's sweeping new amendments to the International Health Regulations, a remarkable pattern has emerged. From Washington to Warsaw, from Jerusalem to Buenos Aires, nations across the globe are standing up to protect their sovereignty against unprecedented WHO overreach. What began as scattered resistance has transformed into a coordinated defense of democratic self-governance in health policy.

The stakes could not be higher. These amendments, rushed through in violation of WHO's own procedural rules, would fundamentally transform the relationship between sovereign nations and an unelected international bureaucracy. The time for action is now.

Understanding the WHO Power Grab

The World Health Organization has advanced two distinct but complementary instruments designed to centralize global health governance under its control. First, the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 Amendments, adopted on June 1, 2024, introduce sweeping changes that would grant the WHO Director-General unprecedented authority to declare "pandemic emergencies" and direct national responses. These amendments strategically remove "non-binding" language from WHO recommendations, creating a framework for mandatory compliance.

Second, the WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted May 20, 2025, establishes mechanisms for forced pharmaceutical production sharing and technology transfers. This treaty requires companies to surrender 20% of their pandemic-related products to WHO control and demands the sharing of proprietary technologies—in our opinion, a direct assault on intellectual property rights and free market principles.

Together, these instruments represent the most aggressive expansion of international health authority in history. They would transform WHO from an advisory body into a de facto global health legislator with enforcement powers that supersede national constitutions and democratic processes.

The United States led the charge for sovereignty when President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, completely withdrawing from the WHO. This decisive action recognized what many nations now understand: the organization's mismanagement of COVID-19 and its increasing politicization have rendered it unfit to dictate health policies to sovereign nations.

Israel, while not formally withdrawing yet, also sent a powerful message by abstaining from the Pandemic Agreement vote alongside ten other nations including Poland, Italy, Russia, and Slovakia. This abstention reflects deep concerns about surrendering national health decision-making to an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated bias and incompetence.

Argentina, under President Milei's leadership, has initiated withdrawal proceedings, recognizing that true health security comes from national self-determination, not international bureaucracy. Meanwhile, formal rejections of earlier amendments have come from Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Slovakia—a diverse coalition united by the principle that health decisions should be made by elected governments, not distant bureaucrats.

The Constitutional Crisis No One Is Discussing

The procedural violations surrounding these amendments reveal WHO's contempt for legitimate governance. The 2024 amendments were negotiated in under three years with merely four months' notice—a direct violation of IHR Article 55.2, which requires four years for such fundamental changes. Documents were allegedly manipulated to present new articles as existing text, deceiving member states about the scope of changes.

Even more alarming, the amendments reduce the rejection period for future changes from 18 months to just 10 months, creating a mechanism for WHO to continuously expand its powers with diminished opportunity for democratic opposition. The Pandemic Agreement explicitly prohibits reservations, meaning nations must accept every provision wholesale or reject the entire framework—a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum that mocks the principle of negotiated international agreements.

The Economic Sovereignty Threat

Beyond the constitutional concerns lies an economic power grab of staggering proportions. The new "coordinating financial mechanism" creates open-ended financial obligations without any cost estimates or budgetary limits. Nations would be committing to blank checks written by WHO bureaucrats.

The mandatory technology transfer provisions and the requirement for pharmaceutical companies to surrender 20% of production represent a fundamental attack on property rights and market economics. These provisions would devastate innovation incentives precisely when we need pharmaceutical advancement most. Why would companies invest billions in research if they must surrender their discoveries and a fifth of their production to international bureaucrats?

Human Rights Under Siege

Perhaps most chilling are the human rights implications. The amendments grant WHO unprecedented powers over individual liberties, including:

The authority to implement digital health certificates that could restrict movement and access to services based on compliance with WHO directives. The power to combat "infodemics"—a euphemism for censoring any information that contradicts WHO narratives, regardless of its accuracy or scientific merit. The ability to override informed consent principles in the name of pandemic response. The framework for mandatory medical interventions decided not by patients and their doctors, but by international committees.

These powers would transform WHO from a health advisory body into an enforcer of medical mandates, trampling centuries of progress in medical ethics and individual rights.

As the July 19 deadline approaches, the resistance grows stronger. Parliamentary challenges have emerged in Estonia, the Philippines, South Africa, Japan, Canada, and Australia. The European Union faces internal dissent as member states recognize the threat to their sovereignty. Civil society organizations worldwide are mobilizing to demand their governments reject these amendments.

This is not a partisan issue. The coalition opposing WHO overreach spans the political spectrum, united by the fundamental principle that health decisions affecting citizens should be made by governments accountable to those citizens, not by unelected international bureaucrats with no democratic mandate.

Why Your We Must Act Now! And if you haven’t signed the Notice And Demand Yet, Please do so now and sign the demand given above!

Every nation that fails to reject these amendments by July 19, 2025, will have surrendered a piece of its dignity that may prove impossible to reclaim. Once these mechanisms are in place, WHO will have the power to continuously expand its authority with reduced ability for nations to resist.

The choice is stark but clear. Nations can either maintain their sovereign right to determine health policies based on their unique circumstances, values, and democratic processes, or they can subordinate themselves to an international organization that has proven itself politically compromised, procedurally corrupt, and practically incompetent.

The United States, Argentina, and others have shown the way forward. Israel and ten other nations have signaled their deep reservations. Four countries have formally rejected previous amendments, with more preparing to follow. This is not isolation—it is the assertion of fundamental democratic principles against bureaucratic overreach.

If you value national sovereignty, democratic governance, and individual liberty, the time to act is now. Contact your representatives, your health ministers, your heads of state. Demand they follow “The Lead of Nations” courageous enough to say no to WHO overreach. Share this information with your networks. Make your voice heard before the July 19 deadline passes and these amendments automatically take effect.

The question before every nation is simple: Will you govern your own health policies through democratic processes, or will you surrender that authority to an unaccountable international bureaucracy? The United States has given its answer. Israel has signaled its concerns. Argentina is taking action.

Now it is time for your nation to join the global movement to preserve health sovereignty. The deadline approaches. The choice is yours. Choose sovereignty. Choose democracy. Choose freedom.

Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel will withdraw from joining the WHO's updated health regulations Reason: Concern that the treaty will grant the organization far-reaching powers at the expense of the state in the areas of security, economy and education "We are avoiding an administrative coup

Source: https://www.c14.co.il/article/1266005

The WHO regulations in question

There are two distinct WHO initiatives that countries are responding to:

1. International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 Amendments

• Adopted June 1, 2024 by consensus at the 77th World Health Assembly

• Introduces definitions for "pandemic emergency" as highest alert level

• Creates new committees and financial mechanisms for pandemic preparedness

• Enters into force September 19, 2025 unless countries actively reject by July 19, 2025

2. WHO Pandemic Agreement (Treaty)

• Adopted May 20, 2025 by the 78th World Health Assembly

• Requires pharmaceutical companies to provide WHO with 20% of pandemic products

• Establishes technology transfer and benefit-sharing systems

• Cannot be signed until further negotiations complete; requires 60 ratifications to enter force

Israel's actual position and timeline

May 20, 2025: Israel abstained from the WHO Pandemic Agreement vote alongside 10 other countries (Poland, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Bulgaria, Egypt, Jamaica, Netherlands, Paraguay). This was not a withdrawal but an abstention from supporting the agreement.

Context of Israel-WHO tensions: In November 2023, Health Minister Bosso criticized WHO for failing to acknowledge Hamas's use of Gaza hospitals for terrorist purposes. Following the US withdrawal from WHO in January 2025, Israel's Knesset Health Committee scheduled debates about potentially following suit, driven by members of Netanyahu's Likud party and far-right coalition partners.

Countries rejecting or withdrawing from WHO regulations

Countries that formally rejected 2022 IHR amendments:

• Iran: Cited concerns about reduced timeframes for future rejections

• Netherlands: Made reservations due to lack of due process

• New Zealand: New coalition government wanted independent assessment

• Slovakia: Prime Minister announced opposition to strengthening WHO

These four countries have until March 19, 2026 to reject the 2024 amendments, while all other countries face a July 19, 2025 deadline.

Complete WHO withdrawal:

• United States: President Trump signed executive order January 20, 2025, citing WHO's "mismanagement of COVID-19"

• Argentina: President Milei initiated withdrawal process in early 2025

• Hungary and Italy: Politicians publicly debating potential withdrawal

Parliamentary opposition without formal rejection: Estonia, Philippines, South Africa, Japan, Canada, Australia, and several EU member states have seen legislative challenges or public campaigns against the amendments, though their governments haven't formally rejected them.

Timeline of global responses

2022: Initial IHR amendments adopted in May; four countries reject by November

2024:

• June 1: New IHR amendments adopted

• September 19: WHO notifies all member states

2025:

• January 20: US withdraws from WHO

• May 20: Pandemic Agreement adopted (11 abstentions)

• July 19: Deadline for most countries to reject IHR amendments

• September 19: IHR amendments enter force for non-rejecting countries

2026:

• March 19: Deadline for the four 2022-rejecting countries

• September 19: Amendments enter force for those countries

Primary concerns driving rejections

Countries rejecting these WHO initiatives cite remarkably consistent concerns across five major categories:

Sovereignty and constitutional issues form the core objection. Nations fear that removing "non-binding" language from WHO recommendations could transfer decision-making authority from elected governments to the WHO Director-General, particularly during emergencies. Many cite direct conflicts with their constitutions and worry about WHO becoming a "global health legislator" without democratic accountability.

Procedural violations have galvanized opposition. Critics note the 2024 amendments were negotiated in under three years with just four months' notice - violating IHR Article 55.2 requirements. The Netherlands specifically cited these due process failures. Documents allegedly presented new articles in plain text to disguise them as existing provisions.

Economic burdens remain undefined. The new "coordinating financial mechanism" creates open-ended commitments without cost estimates. Requirements for manufacturers to provide 20% of production to WHO and mandatory technology transfers raise concerns about property rights and market interference.

Enforcement mechanisms worry many governments. The amendments would grant WHO's Director-General power to declare "pandemic emergencies" unilaterally, with countries having reduced time (10 months instead of 18) to reject future amendments. The pandemic treaty explicitly prohibits reservations, preventing countries from modifying terms.

Human rights and civil liberties concerns include potential violations of informed consent, privacy rights through digital health certificates, freedom of movement restrictions, and WHO's "infodemic management" powers to combat what it deems "misinformation" - raising free speech concerns.

Current global status

As of July 2025, the situation remains fluid. The IHR 2024 amendments were adopted by consensus but face a critical juncture with the July 19, 2025 rejection deadline approaching. The Pandemic Agreement cannot proceed to signature until additional negotiations complete.

Key numbers:

• 196 total IHR States Parties (194 WHO members plus Liechtenstein and Holy See)

• 4 countries formally rejected 2022 amendments

• 11 countries abstained from Pandemic Agreement

• 1 major country (US) completely withdrew from WHO

• Multiple countries have active parliamentary challenges

The pattern reveals a significant minority actively resisting WHO's expanded authority, led by the US withdrawal but spanning diverse political systems. Common themes include protecting national sovereignty, demanding democratic oversight, ensuring constitutional compliance, and preventing unaccountable international bureaucracies from directing domestic health policies.

Conclusion

While Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso recently announced a withdrawal, Israel's abstention from the WHO Pandemic Agreement reflects broader global tensions about international health governance. The approaching July 19, 2025 deadline for rejecting IHR amendments represents a pivotal moment where additional countries may formalize their opposition. The fundamental tension between coordinated pandemic response and national sovereignty remains unresolved, with countries increasingly choosing to preserve domestic control over health policies rather than cede authority to international bodies.

---

For continuous updates on the global resistance to WHO overreach and actionable steps you can take to protect your nation's sovereignty, subscribe to our newsletter. Time is running out, but together, we can ensure health decisions remain where they belong—in the hands of democratically accountable governments, not international bureaucrats.