The wording "I am a member" is intended to be broad in order to prevent a situation in which a terrorist claims: "I am acting on behalf of the organization, I have sworn allegiance to it, I speak its language – but since I did not meet the technical condition – X, I am not a member." The term "a member" adds the test of substance in that it allows the court to determine that a person who behaves like a friend and feels like a friend is indeed a friend.
The application of the principle of legality to the definition of "member of a terrorist organization", which the defense argued at length in its summaries, is what necessitates a transition from a formalistic-ceremonial interpretation to a purposeful-substantive interpretation, which anchors the certainty of the prohibition in the functional relationship that the defendant created in his actions between him and the organization.
According to the defense's argument for the "crack and absurdity" in light of the presumption of membership in section 2(b), according to which if the law exempts a person who erroneously thought that he spoke to a representative, all the more so someone who did not speak to a representative should be acquitted, I will refer to the explanatory notes to section 2(b) of the bill, according to which the presumption of membership is intended for cases of error of fact. On the other hand, in the case of the defendant who made a self-determination, there is no mistake. The defendant, who is well in the depths of the organization, also knew who he swore to and how to swear, and he did so knowing the significance of the act of oath he committed, and all this, after a long and in-depth process of maturation (which we will expand on later), after which he saw himself as belonging to the organization.
While the defense clings to the absence of a "representative" as a crack in the principle of legality, the opinion of an ISA expert, which was not contradicted in a counter-opinion and in general, shows that in modern terrorism, which is characterized by digital decentralization – the declaration of allegiance (expression) and the voluntary adoption of terminology and organizational warfare doctrine – constitute an act of "acceptance" for a constant offer to the public, thus creating the specificity required for incrimination.