In response, the prosecutor referred to the defendant's testimony in court, which was naïve, convoluted and evasive, and therefore petitioned in her summaries to determine that the defendant had confessed to his interrogators of his own free will all the facts of the indictment, according to which he had consumed the contents of the appeal differently over the course of years and obsessively as he testified about himself; After October 7, his views became extreme, and he made a call for a different leader of Da'ar, and that he understood its significance and saw himself as someone who had joined ISIS.
In response to the aforesaid, Adv. Feldman said: "What there is, we do not dispute the matter" (pp. 110-111).
- 15. In its oral summaries, the defense confirmed that the defendant had made a statement among himself, and confirmed the defendant's confessions in his interrogation by the Shin Bet and the police, as follows: "Yes, I agree that the defendant made a statement, but the statement in itself, according to the law and not according to the Shin Bet, is not enough to make him a member of the terrorist organization. The Shin Bet also doesn't see the statement in itself as much as a tool for joining the terror organization."
In its written summaries (p. 7, paragraph 32): "The defendant fully cooperated in his investigations. admitted to saying the "problem" to himself, but reiterated in his interrogations with the police, as in the Shin Bet, that he had never intended to carry out any action on the orders of ISIS..."
And later on: "... The prosecution's war to prove that the defendant said, "A problem in his room, in the space of the world, is a false war. Therefore, we noted during the oral summaries that as far as the defense is concerned, the question of whether or not he said a "problem" – as the prosecution claims in some of his interrogations – is meaningless. In any case, saying a "problem" not in front of someone who introduced himself as a member of a different Dar'ar organization has no meaning.
- 16. The summaries of the defense (oral and written), as stated, lacked any reference to the evidentiary basis that the prosecution elaborated on in its oral summaries to prove the facts of the indictment, which the defendant denied in his reply to the indictment. In its summaries, the defense not only abandoned the arguments it raised regarding the facts of the indictment, but also no longer disputed the factual evidentiary basis that was deployed in the prosecution's case.
Although the exhibits file was submitted with consent and the defense waived the examination of most of the prosecution's witnesses, it took three long sessions to hear the evidence. The scope of the dispute between the parties was limited only at the defense summary stage to the argument that the indictment relied entirely on the defendant's self-declaration (a training oath to the leader of the Islamic State organization) and that the defendant's self-declaration does not constitute an offense of membership in a terrorist organization under the Counterterrorism Law.