"1) The flight was cancelled due to special circumstances beyond his control, and even if he had done everything in his power - he could not have prevented its cancellation due to those circumstances.
(2) The flight was canceled due to a strike or protected shutdown (a clause that was added and was not included in the proposal for first reading, even though this matter has already been discussed in the Committee)
(3) The flight was canceled in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday."
(Emphasis not in the original - A.M.).
Therefore, the causal connection to special circumstances and the combination of the boxes of proof in order to win the protection of a collective dispute (1) are separate from what is required in a collective dispute (3). The same applies to a protected strike or a protected shutdown (when from a linguistic point of view, there is no need to repeat the definition of "protected" both in relation to a strike and in relation to a shutdown, since the latter is attributed to both, even if there is the link word "or" that is attributed to two different events - a strike versus a shutdown, such as a Saturday vs. a holiday) and therefore there is no need to prove this subject to a collective dispute (1) in order to gain protection. As opposed to a case in which it is not a protected strike or a protected strike, then the collective dispute (1) must be proven (see Shimron v. El Al above). In addition, while in a collective dispute (1) and in a collective dispute (2) a causal connection is required, when it is a causal link (one part of the sentence explains why the other part of the sentence happened), in a collective dispute (3) a link word of the purpose type appears (one part of the sentence explains the purpose of the other part). While a cause link explains why something happened (the reason has already occurred) and shows the background or cause of the action that has already happened, a purpose link indicates the purpose (what you want to happen in the future or is expected to happen in the future). Therefore, regardless of the reason that led to the delay for which the flight is canceled, but whatever the reason, the flight must be canceled in order to achieve the goal of preventing the desecration of Shabbat or holidays. It is not necessary to prove that the reason that led to the delay could have been neutralized. In contrast to the reservation set forth in the collective dispute (1), it does not impose an obligation on the flight operator to prove that certain measures have been taken or that the standard of maintenance has been met. It is sufficient that the delay or malfunction causes the flight to take place on Shabbat, and in these circumstances, the flight operator is entitled to cancel the flight without incurring the compensation set out in the first appendix to the law.