Counterterrorism Blog

The U.S. based charity Holy Land Foundation (HLF) went on trial this week, along with seven individuals who were principals of HLF. They were indicted in 2004 for providing material support to terrorists, namely to HAMAS. The trial began with the jury selection phase. Thus far, the trial has generated moderate media coverage. As it progresses, the trial will garner more intense coverage. This is an extremely complex and document intensive case. The trial should last a minimum of five months. To date, the media coverage has spawned a series of myths that warrant being dispelled.

The bottom line is that HLF did in fact fund HAMAS. HAMAS is a masterful organization at exploiting and manipulating charities for financial and logistical support, as well as for recruitment and marketing, in the sense of winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people.

The term “Islamophobia” has been described by media and Islamic organization sources as the catalyst for this investigation and trial. Make no mistake about it; this trial is not about ethnic discrimination or political motivation. This trial’s sole consideration is the willful disbursement of funds by HLF to HAMAS, a terrorist organization. Islamic groups espousing “Islamophobia” or political motivation are providing a disservice to their constituencies. Islamic groups must stand up and honestly recognize the fact that their charities are vulnerable to exploitation by terrorist groups and have historically served as a significant source of funding for terrorists. It’s incumbent on the Islamic community to police its charities and ensure donations intended for charitable purposes are in fact used for charitable purposes and not in any way to support terrorism. Islamic charities serve a vital role and provide much needed relief to the poor and destitute.

There have been reports that the HLF case was driven by political pressure brought to bear by the Israelis. There is absolutely no truth to this allegation. This investigation was initiated by the FBI, specifically based on the predication that HLF was providing funds and other support to HAMAS. The Israelis have cooperated with the investigation but have no influence over the investigators or prosecutors.

Distinctions have been drawn between the social and military wings of HAMAS. As a result, it has been theorized that providing funds to the social or charitable wing of HAMAS should be acceptable because humanitarian aid is provided to the needy. The unfortunate reality is that no such distinction can be drawn. HAMAS, the organization, the entire organization, must be recognized and treated as a terrorist organization. Regardless of the use of funds, under all circumstances, HAMAS, the terrorist organization benefits. This is a heart wrenching and unfortunate reality for those who truly need aid. HAMAS must be held responsible for this because of the manner in which they use charities to support their terrorist activity. The U.S. government has rightly taken a hard line in this regard.

A theme gaining traction in the media has been that there is pressure on the government to win this trial. The government has suffered setbacks in two recent cases, which possessed similarities to this case. First was the Sami Al-Arian case in Tampa. Al-Arian was tried on charges of providing material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was acquitted of certain charges and there was a hung jury concerning other charges. Al-Arian ultimately accepted a guilty plea to lesser charges. The second case occurred in Illinois where two subjects were found not guilty for providing material support to HAMAS. The reality is, neither of those cases factor into the HLF case. The prosecutors and investigators are focused specifically on HLF. Those other cases are irrelevant with respect to this case. Another case, which hasn’t been mentioned in this context, was the Infocom case, which was related to HLF. In Infocom, five brothers, including Ghassan Elashi, a subject in the HLF case, were convicted in Dallas for conducting business with Libya and Syria, known state sponsors of terrorism. They were also convicted for financial dealings with a longtime HAMAS operative.

Despite the fact that HLF did provide funding and support to HAMAS, obtaining a conviction in this matter will be a challenge for the government. As mentioned earlier, this is an extremely complex and document intensive case. This is where the “lawyering” comes into play. The prosecutors must prove their charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense attorneys must create questions and doubts to sway the jury for acquittal. They must establish doubt to the government’s argument that the subjects knowingly provided material support. In cases of such complexity, it is difficult to gauge how the jury will respond. The prosecutors should attempt to simplify the case as much as possible.

This is an extremely important case. However, regardless of whether there are prosecutions or acquittals, actions already taken against HLF and other charities have definitively disrupted the flow of funds to terrorists. In December 2001, HLF assets were frozen. In and around that time frame, the assets of other charities were also frozen. These actions had a chilling effect on charitable giving to like charities. The indictment and trial in the HLF case continue the deterrent created by the asset freezes. The disruptions achieved have diminished the flow of funds to terrorists. Consider the current HAMAS financial state. If HAMAS still had access to a funding mechanism such as HLF, it would have been extremely beneficial. Fortunately, they don’t.

Should the government lose this trial, they will receive harsh criticism and in a sense validate some of the myths addressed above. It will also cause the government to take a step back to seriously reevaluate prosecutive theory and investigative methodologies. Should the government win this case, they should leverage the sense of credibility achieved in this matter and use it to work with the Islamic community to address the areas of vulnerability, such as charities, exploited by terrorists. Meaningful dialogue is an important step in this process.

Win or lose, the government should reevaluate prosecutive theories and investigative methodologies in cases of this nature. They should identify mechanisms that work best and develop new mechanisms to better address future challenges. From the stand point of lessons learned, training curriculums should be developed for prosecutors and investigators to enhance their skills and abilities in handling these challenging and complex cases.