In any case, any claim that the opinion has invaded the field of legal interpretation or that its role is limited to identifying risks should be rejected outright. This argument undermines the essence of an expert opinion in the field of modern terrorism. While the court is responsible for the interpretation of the law, and in this case, according to the law's definition, "a member of a terrorist organization," the opinion is the professional tool that enables factual content to be poured into it. In order for the court to be able to determine whether a particular action consolidates an organizational affiliation, it must first understand the 'rules of the game' of the relevant organization. The opinion does not interpret the law, but rather exposes the operational and strategic infrastructure of the MDAS, including the transformation of self-expression into a binding act of joining. The identification of the risk in the opinion is not done in a vacuum, but rather is the result of an understanding of the organizational structure. Therefore, the opinion does not purport to replace the court's discretion, but rather provides it with the professional basis required to establish the legal conclusion regarding the defendant's membership in the organization.
The opinion is broad, detailed and in-depth. The opinion presents a coherent analysis of the Islamic State's modern operating model. The importance of this opinion is enhanced by the fact that it was not contradicted in a counter-opinion on behalf of the defense, and the professional theses presented in it – and in particular regarding the transformation of the institution of the "bi'a" – remained solid and did not crack. The expertise reflected in the opinion, which is based on a comparative analysis of foreign arenas vis-à-vis the operational reality in Israel, gives it considerable evidentiary weight and professional specificity that enables the court to determine factual and legal findings on the basis of it.