The prosecution referred extensively to the contents of the various appeals that the defendant consumed and downloaded to his mobile devices, referred to a long and varied list of the contents (P/21, P/22), which includes, inter alia, issues of the newspaper "Al-Naba" (the official weekly of ISIS), information on explosive devices, explosives and poisons, the use of the TOR app for anonymous browsing, and content downloaded by the defendant that contained many dozens of files (P/21) that were arranged in designated folders. Among them were instructional folders for the preparation of explosives and poisons, some of which were password protected.
She referred to the defendant's correspondence on the WhatsApp application (P/21) and to a series of correspondence with his friends (Tamer, Ahmad al-Falluji, Bilal Shabari (P/19, P/20), which indicate that the defendant uses the language and terminology of ISIS, talks to them about the leader of ISIS, the new caliph of the terrorist organization, and asks if they have committed a crime.
In an in-depth review of all the evidence, the prosecution showed how the agreed objective evidence is well integrated and corroborates the defendant's statements in his interrogations, including his claim that there was a radicalization in his views after October 7, 2023, as a turning point after which he swore an oath of allegiance to the leader of the terrorist organization Da'arar Shana and saw himself as part of the organization.
- Referring to the dispute over the legal interpretation of the offense of membership in a terrorist organization, she argued, among other things, that the definition of "member of a terrorist organization" In section 2 The Counter-Terrorism Law is open and broad. According to her, a legislator clarified in Rachel Hatak that a "member of a terrorist organization" is a person who belongs to a terrorist organization, including two possible alternatives that are not a closed and limited list as to how a person can be considered a member of a terrorist organization, as the defense claims. The prosecution is of the opinion that if he had wanted to limit his language, but for one of the alternatives in the section, it would have been written "which are one of these" or similar words.
According to her, if the legislature had sought to narrow down the general definition of companies by joining before the representative of the organization, it would not have made use of the general definition, and could have made do with the alternative listed in paragraph (2) or incorporated therein. Ostensibly, it could have been determined in paragraph (2) that a member of a terrorist organization is someone who joined in front of someone who is a member of the organization or before someone who has reason to believe that he is one. However, the legislature did not take this approach, hence the general definition dealing with a "person who is a member of a terrorist organization" refers to any person who is indicated by the totality of the circumstances that he is a member of the organization. Hence, and from the moment "including" is written, this is an expansive interpretation, which includes anyone who is indicated by the facts that he is a member of a terrorist organization.