The defense referred to the principle of legality underlying criminal law, which states in its Penal Law: "There is no offense and no punishment for it unless it is established by law or in accordance with it," and argued that the basic definition of "a member of a terrorist organization, a person who belongs to a terrorist organization" is a circular definition that does not include a definition of who is a member of a terrorist organization, and in fact does not add anything. On the other hand, from the definitions that come after the definition of the basis, it can be concluded that the definition of the basis should be read in its plain sense, i.e., as referring to a case where there is no doubt that the defendant is a member of the terrorist organization. According to the defense, the examples that come after the definition of the basis are intended to expand the definition of the basis or to eliminate doubts, with the first example being "a person who takes an active part in the activity of a terrorist organization or acts as a representative or agent on behalf of a terrorist organization." Hence, and from the fact that the legislature took the trouble to clarify that a person who takes an active part in the activity of a terrorist organization, or acts as a representative or agent of a terrorist organization, is a member of a terrorist organization, we learn that the legislature sought to dispel doubts that might have arisen by virtue of the definition of the base, "lest the court err and not define as a member of a terrorist organization a person who carries out clear actions of the terrorist organization and even acts as its representative or agent."
According to her, if the legislature explicitly mentioned the actions of a terrorist organization and added them to the definition of the base, there is no longer room for the assumption that the definition of the basis also includes a "bi'a" that is uttered into space, since it and its statement are much less clear than "one who takes an active part in the activity of a terrorist organization," about which the legislature took the trouble to explicitly mention – lest it be argued that even a person who takes an active part in the activities of a terrorist organization is not a member of a terrorist organization.