The alternatives listed in subsections (1) and (2) do not exhaust the definition of "member of a terrorist organization", they are an open-ended demonstration list intended to expand the term "member" rather than reduce it. In the legislature's use of the box "including" it states that a person who meets condition (1) or (2) is certainly a member of a terrorist organization, and at the same time, does not exclude the possibility that a person will be considered a "member" even if he is a member of the organization in other ways that are not explicitly specified in the two aforementioned alternatives.
The inclusion in the box "including" is used to add specific examples or details into a broader group ("member of a terrorist organization"), so that a person who can be objectively or subjectively proven to be part of the organization falls under the definition of "who is a member of...", even if he does not go through the two alternatives in the form of consent with a representative or taking an active part in the attack, including by way of self-declaration.
The purpose of the law
The purposive interpretation of section 2(a) is learned from an understanding of the danger inherent in the terrorist organization as a collective. The purpose of the law is to interrupt the organization's human "supply chain" and prevent the formation of the critical mass that allows it to operate.
The language of the law together with the structure of the definition in section 2(a) clearly serves the purpose of the law defined in section 1 of the Counter-Terrorism Law (which is similar in the syntactic structure and the use made by the legislature of the box "including" to the dispute clause in our case):
"The purpose of this law is to establish provisions in the field of criminal and administrative law, including special enforcement powers, for the purpose of combating terrorism, including for the purpose of:
preventing the establishment, existence and activity of terrorist organizations;