The defense argued that the law, its silence and its speech show that a "declaration" or any expression of consent to join a terrorist organization – which is not made to a member of a terrorist organization, a representative or an agent of a terrorist organization – does not fall within the definition of "member of a terrorist organization" under the Counter-Terrorism Law, since if a general declaration were sufficient, there would be no need to expand the definition to a statement before a "representative."
The defense referred to the second example in the definition and argued that the one that includes a situation whereby a defendant expresses his consent to join a terrorist organization to a person who presented himself as a member of an organization, is close to our case, and it is not for nothing that the legislature saw fit to expand the identity of the person to whom the declarant presented his consent to join a terrorist organization, since in doing so he creates the presumption that the person who presented himself as a member is indeed a member of the organization; However, the legislature created a crack in this presumption: if the defendant raises reasonable doubt that his interlocutor was not a member of the organization, the doubt will act in his favor and will not be declared a member of a terrorist organization. From here, according to the Haganah, it can be learned that a person who expresses his consent to join a terrorist organization in his own words, into the space of the world, and not to the ear of someone who presented himself as a member of a terrorist organization, is not "acquitted" the title of a member of a terrorist organization. If not, the very statement expressing consent makes him a member of a terrorist organization, and the questioner will ask, where is the need for the presumption that if the words were said to the person who presented himself as a member, the presumption is that he is a member? And what is the need for a crack in the presumption, i.e., if the defendant raises a reasonable doubt that his interlocutor was not a member of a terrorist organization, even though he declared himself to be such, the doubt will act in his favor and the title of "member of a terrorist organization" will be removed from him?