Counterterrorism Blog

I was contacted today by a reporter who noted that the final arguments in the Holy Land Foundation trial are scheduled for Monday. He inquired about the importance of this case in the government’s anti-terrorism campaign. I posted an article on the Counterterrorism Blog during the jury selection process which, in part, addressed this question.

This is an extremely important case to the government. In complex trials like this, it is difficult to gauge the jury reaction. Regardless of whether there is a conviction or acquittal, the government succeeded in establishing a significant deterrent. Importantly, the government created a sense of awareness to the magnitude that HAMAS manipulates charities. This has caused a decline in charitable giving. HAMAS, not the government, is directly responsible for the decline in charitable giving because of their underhanded techniques in masking terrorist intent.

Documentary evidence was presented during the trial that was damning to the Muslim Brotherhood. It demonstrated the link the Muslim Brotherhood has to radical anti-Western society sentimentality and in favor of terrorism. The evidence also linked Islamic organizations to include the Counsel on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the Muslim Brotherhood.
These are extremely important revelations.

Should the verdict come back guilty, the government will achieve a level of vindication. Should the verdict come back not guilty, it will demonstrate the extreme difficulty in successful prosecution of these types of cases. The government was right to have brought this case to trial. Win or lose, the government must assess its methodologies in pursuing these cases.

Whichever way the jury verdict goes, either the Islamic community or the government will gain leverage by virtue of the decision. In an ideal world, the leverage would be balanced and the government and Islamic community would establish and maintain a meaningful dialogue to address the issues at hand, funding for HAMAS

Since we live in the real world, dialogue in the aftermath of this case will be a challenge, especially if there is an acquittal. Before ISNA and/or CAIR condemn the government, they should acknowledge their relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. They should either distance themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood, or a new moderate Islamic voice needs to step forward and assume a leadership position in moving forward and forging a meaningful relationship with the government.

My colleagues on the Blog have had a series of thoughtful debates about the Justice Department’s participation in the ISNA annual conference. Under the circumstances, the Justice Department exercised poor judgment. However, they were right to interact with the Islamic community. Most members of the Islamic community are good people, espousing moderate views and opposing terrorism. That is why it’s important for a new moderate Islamic voice to step forward.

What both sides must realize is that regardless of the jury verdict, money from Holy Land Foundation funded HAMAS. The other realization is the government has an obligation to continue pursuing these cases when predication to do so exists. That is why it is critically important for the two sides to establish a dialogue on this specific issue. The best way to deny HAMAS funding is for the two sides to work together.