Summary of the defense's arguments
- The defense, for its part, petitions for the defendant's complete acquittal. According to her, the defendant did not commit a criminal offense. The defense argued that the indictment blames the defendant's membership in the terrorist organization Da'ar'ar Shanah on the defendant's performance of a training oath, contrary to the principles of criminal law in a democratic country and even contrary to the position of the Shin Bet expert on its behalf.
The defense argued that the indictment formulates the offense in sections 3 and 4 of the facts chapter, and its essence is what is stated in section 4, according to which "afterwards, at a date that is not known to the accuser, the defendant performed a 'bi'a' to Abu Hafetz al-Hashemi al-Qurashi, the organization's new caliph, and thus joined the organization as a member," and argued that in this way, the prosecution says that saying 'bi'a' into space, without an interlocutor listening on behalf of the organization, is the magic word that when the person says it, takes off his usual form and becomes a member of ISIS. According to the defense, the prosecution in fact claims in the indictment that the very statement to the universe has the power to turn the defendant into a "terrorist", but despite the prosecution's "war" to prove that the defendant uttered the magic spell "bi'a" and thus joined the terrorist organization, and despite the fact that its summaries deal with an attempt to prove from the defendant's interrogations in the Shin Bet and the police, the defendant's confession to saying "bi'a" – the statement of the oath – does not raise or lower the defendant's guilt.
- It should be noted here that the defense's summaries lacked any reference to the evidentiary basis on which it elaborated and in which the prosecution detailed its sums, and in general. The defense's summaries focused solely on the argument that the act of 'claim' committed by the defendant among himself lacked any significance or significance, and therefore did not constitute a criminal offense of membership in a terrorist organization, according to Section 22(a) to the Counter-Terrorism Law.
The defense no longer disputed the fact that the defendant voluntarily admitted during his interrogations that he had made a claim against the leader of the ISIS terrorist organization, and that he had made a claim. The defense argued that in view of the fact that the indictment is based exclusively on the defendant's uttering of the "magic spell" – the "supplication" – as an action that connects him to the terrorist organization (a different appeal) – he cannot be convicted of the offense of membership in a terrorist organization, according to the Counter-Terrorism Law, since, as stated, he did not commit this offense.