In other words, the defense asks, what is the need for a dialogue that presents itself as a member of a terrorist organization, and what is the need for a presumption and crack back, if, as the prosecution claims, the very statement – and not necessarily to someone who has already presented himself as a member of a terrorist organization – is sufficient to convict him as a member of a terrorist organization. Similar to the aforesaid, with reference to the term "including this", it was argued that at this time it appears in the Law, it comes to indicate cases that expand or interpret the definition of the basis that preceded it. And if you say that the definition of the basis also includes the statement of "expression" not to join a terrorist organization but to all of me - what is the need to expand it and create a presumption and a crack in the presumption?
The defense argued that according to the interpretation of the lawsuit, an absurd result is obtained, according to which a person who expressed his consent to join a terrorist organization in the presence of a person who presented himself as a member of a terrorist organization, and succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt as to whether his interlocutor was indeed a member of the organization would be acquitted; On the other hand, anyone who has agreed to join a terrorist organization in the vacuum will be convicted of being a member of a terrorist organization.
According to the defense, an oath of allegiance to a terrorist organization by a person for himself and not before the representative of the organization or anyone known to belong to the organization. The statement of the "statement" in itself, as the defendant performed in his room and without the presence of a representative of the organization, is not enough to make him a member of a terrorist organization according to the law. This is because it is clear that the seriousness of membership in a terrorist organization does not stem from the defendant's mind alone, but from his willingness to stand at the disposal of the terrorist organization and carry out its instructions. Hence, as long as a different organization does not know the defendant, does not know about his existence and his willingness to commit acts of terror, according to its instructions, "membership" in the organization has no meaning. This argument, according to the defense, is reinforced by the opinion of an ISA expert known as "Yishai" who listed a list of "tests" that is not closed, noting that the strength of one test is likely to compensate for the weakness of another, but did not determine that a mere "statement" is sufficient. Similarly, in his testimony in court in this context, he stated that the mere statement of "statement" does not make the defendant a member of a terrorist organization: "A statement does not stand alone" and that "it is a very strengthening condition, but it does not satisfy other things" in order to define a person as a member of a terrorist organization.