On the other hand, she elaborated on the argument that the opinion of an ISA expert should not be relied upon, since it was based solely on personal knowledge and did not support and substantiate a determination that the defendant was a member of the terrorist organization ISIS. In her view, the role of an ISA expert is limited to identifying risks and not interpreting the law.
The defense argued that the prosecution did not make a distinction between thinking and acting, as required by the criminal law, which punishes acts that were actually committed, and not for thoughts, hallucinations or dreams. In this context, it is further argued that the indictment attributes to the defendant the consumption of different contents of the appeal and the removal of explosives and poisons, but does not claim that these actions, combined with the "bi'a," make the defendant a member of the organization
According to the defense, an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Law of November 2023, which establishes a new offense of "consumption of terrorist materials" with a sentence of one year in prison and a requirement for the approval of the Attorney General, is a statutory provision that could have been attributed to the defendant, but the prosecution, which sought to circumvent this offense, with its limitations and a lighter sentence, argued that these actions committed by the defendant strengthen the definition as a "member of a terrorist organization" whose punishment is more onerous and does not require the approval of the Attorney General. Thus, it violates constitutional rights such as freedom of thought.
The defense cautioned against interpreting the prosecution, which in its view embodies dangers, inter alia, in the form of a "slippery slope" in which the security services, and not the courts, will determine the boundaries of criminal law. From here, she further argued that the prosecution's interpretation, according to which the definition of "member of a terrorist organization" is open and can be filled in by the prosecution or the court, is outrageous and dangerous. The defense believes that this is similar to a situation in which the court is given the opportunity to expand the definition to include the singing of the anthem, the writing of slogans or a prayer in a certain wording, based on the opinion of an ISA expert. In this context, she referred to the explanatory notes to the bill, to show that it clearly follows that "a casual declaration of readiness to join a terrorist organization that has been made against the whole world" does not make the declarant a member of a terrorist organization, and that a declaration is required to a person who is a member of the organization or an agent on its behalf.