Object of the oath: The defendant said the wording of the statement to the new Caliph, "Abu Hefetz";
Manner of Execution of the Oath: Independently, among himself, the defendant read to himself the wording of the statement ("Aya" and known as "Harush") when it was done in a familiar and legitimate practice in terms of the Midasic religious concept (and in view of the leadership of the Midras and halachic elements on its behalf), which is customary especially in non-institutionalized arenas such as Israel, where it is not possible to hold a "group" oath process. In this respect, it was found that the defendant carried out the process of taking the oath in a manner consistent with the characteristics of the scene in which he was staying, and in a manner consistent with the "rules of the Mada's ceremony";
The meaning of the oath: The defendant stated in his interrogation that after he had sworn allegiance to the Caliph, he considered himself to belong to the "Islamic State." The ISA expert notes that the defendant's conduct is consistent with the well-known religious doctrine (detailed in the opinion section) according to which the act of taking the artists' oath constitutes in fact a "mechanism for joining and belonging" to the ranks of the Madas. This is whether the act of oath is performed in a group framework (in an official district) or in a personal-individual framework, as in the case of the defendant.
In fact, the defendant admits that he was fully aware of the significance of the act of expression as constituting an entrance ticket to the ranks of the MDAS and his becoming a member of the organization.
Sharing the oath: The defendant shared the fact that he had fulfilled an artists' oath to Khalifa Abu Hefetz in front of a Sheikh from Dasi, his friend, Tamer Ismail. The Shin Bet expert explains that the act of participation in the execution of a statement strengthens the importance that the defendant attributes to the act of oath, as it is a significant process that symbolizes joining the organization, and therefore he wanted to "wave" the process in front of other members of the Madasit community.
- The defense, which did not submit an expert opinion on its behalf, argued that the opinion of the 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 ISIS terrorist organization. In her view, the role of an ISA expert is limited to identifying risks and not to interpreting the law.
It is puzzling how the aforementioned argument is supposed to be reconciled with the fact that the defense took the trouble to refer to the expert testimony in court in order to support its claim that making a self-defense alone does not make the defendant a member of a terrorist organization.