Exclusive: The Holy Land Foundation Trial: Faith, Hate and Charity (Part Two of Two)


Author: Adrian Morgan

Date Published: 2007-10-10


 

In the second of a two-part series, FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan completes his overview of the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity accused of aiding and abetting terror activities. You’ll get an idea what it’s like to be a juror, who must sift through the mountains of evidence to come to a verdict in this landmark case.

 

The Holy Land Foundation Trial: Faith, Hate and Charity

(Part Two of Two)

 

By Adrian Morgan

 

Press reporting on the Dallas trial of the Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development and seven co-defendants (two of whom are not in the U.S.) has been brief at best. As this trial has been the largest terrorist-funding case to date in the U.S., the lack of objective media reporting is a cause for concern. More informative accounts of the trial proceedings have come from the Investigative Project on Terrorism and the Counterterrorism Blog.

 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has provided full documentation of evidence exhibits presented at the trial, but without a guide, these are somewhat daunting to explore. The NEFA Foundation has presented a valuable guide to some of this trial documentation.

 

Judge Joe A. Fish ruled that, "The court will not tolerate any attempts to have this case tried in the media." The scant press reporting of the details of trial evidence has more than fulfilled Judge Fish's request.

 

One document from the trial was a recording of a telephone conversation featuring one of the defendants, Mohammed El-Mezain, talking to Mohammed al-Hanooti. The latter individual is on the list of "unindicted co-conspirators" at the current trial, but he was also an unindicted co-conspirator at the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, connected with the February 16, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

 

In the phone conversation, recorded on October 20, 1995, Mohammed El-Mezain stated: "I spoke one time and Salah spoke once in the past in regards to... er, I mean, he who wants to donate should send directly and stuff like that."

 

"Salah" is the name of Hamas' former principle fund-raiser Muhammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah (aka Abu Ahmed), who at that time was in prison in Israel. According to BBC journalist John Ware: "Salah's mission was to distribute funds (to Hamas operatives in the Palestinian territories)..... Salah began distributing about a quarter of a million dollars to local Hamas operatives. Some was ear marked for military activities. Some for missionary dawah. More money was in the pipe line from his bank in Chicago. But the Israelis had been tracking him. Stopped at a check point as he left Gaza, Salah was arrested (in March 1993). Salah ended up doing nearly 5 years in an Israeli jail, where the Israeli's got a lot out of him."

 

Ware stated that with Salah imprisoned, "Hamas would be forced to reorganize its funding arrangements." This would necessitate the meeting at the Philadelphia hotel, which took place in October 1993, to discuss means of gathering funds for Hamas without directly mentioning the group's name.

 

On December 10, 2004 a judgment was made at the U.S. District Court, District of Illinois, against Salah, the Quranic Literacy Institute, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP, a precursor of CAIR), American Muslim Society and the Holy Land Foundation. A jury had found against the defendants in a civil suit brought by the parents of David Boim, a 17-year-old New Yorker of dual U.S./Israeli nationality. Boim was shot in the head while he waited to catch a bus in the West Bank. His killer was Khalil Ibrahim Tawfik Sharif who blew himself up in 1997 in a Jerusalem mall suicide attack. Sharif was a Hamas activist.

 

The jury at the District Court in Illinois ruled that the defendants in the Boim civil suit (number 00 C 2905) should pay $52 million, and the court tripled the amount to $156 million plus costs. The jury's verdict directly led to the Holy Land Foundation being designated by the U.S. Treasury as a terrorist entity and its assets blocked on December 4, 2001. HLF was re-designated on May 31, 2002.

 

 

56-year-old Mousa Abu Marzook is a senior Hamas leader, whose sphere of operations include Amman and Damascus. He had been designated as a terrorist in August 1995. Hamas was also designated as a terrorist entity in 1995. Marzook had founded the Islamic Association for Palestine in Texas in 1991. His wife Nadia Elashi is a cousin of Ghassan Elashi, one of the defendants in the current HLF trial in Dallas. Marzook was said to have made an agreement to lodge $250,000 in the form of regular payments, into the company INFOCOM, where Elashi had been the vice-president. This company, according to the U.S. Treasury, had been founded in 1992 with capital provided by Marzook's wife.

 

The agreement had been made around March 1993. The money was to be disguised within company accounts, and then sent back to Marzook. After August 1995, all payments to and from Marzouk became illegal. Ghassan Elashi and two of his brothers – Bayan and Basman – were found guilty of "conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists" on April 13, 2005. On October 13, 2006, Ghassan Elashi was sentenced to seven years' jail.

 

Not surprisingly, Marzook's name features in the documentation presented to the court in this trial. He had been deported to Jordan in May 1997 after spending two years in a New York jail on charges of immigration violations.

 

In August 1995, a month after Marzook had been arrested, two of the defendants at the current trial, Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker (the head of HLF), were recorded in a conversation with another man and an unidentified woman. They discussed communications with Nadia Marzook and spoke of establishing a fund for Marzook, as well as a mailing campaign to senators and the U.S. State Department. They were unsure if CAIR should be involved in this.

 

They discussed Hamas and how the terror group was thwarting the "U.S. strategic line in the Middle East region." Elashi spoke of Marzouk's arrest, saying: "It is just a bunch of Jews in this country are the ones who cooked up the whole thing and he became a victim for it." The conversation included plans for getting money from a Saudi prince and approaching IBM for a grant to assist HLF's setting up of a computer company in Gaza.

 

The Dallas Morning News had suggested at around the same time in an editorial article that Marzook should be deported from the U.S., where he had lived for 15 years. It referred to Hamas' intentions to create an Islamic state to replace Israel. Ghassan Elashi, in a wiretapped phone conversation with Shukri Abu Baker, said, "Yes, I want to establish an Islamic state in Palestine. Is this a crime?"

 

When arrested at JFK airport in New York in July 2005, Marzook was found to possess the home phone number of Shukri Abu Baker in his address book, as well as the number of the Los Angeles branch office of HLF. When asked by a Dallas Morning News reporter about this, Baker said that that it was because Marzook was "charismatic" and a "philanthropist."

 

More trial documents are found at the NEFA Foundation, including those connected with the funding of "zakat committees" in Palestinian territories which have been suspected of supporting Hamas terrorists and their families.

 

The Defense

 

On Tuesday September 4th, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem under the Clinton administration testified for the defense. Edward Abington Jr. claimed that he was not aware of who ran the various "zakat committees" in the West Bank and Gaza. Abington said that these committees did charitable work and were staffed by "pious Muslims."

 

When asked why Hamas posters of "martyred" suicide bombers appeared in so many of the zakat committee offices, he countered that such material was widepread, being "plastered all over light posts and in people's offices... These are seen as signs of resistance to the Israeli occupation in general."

 

Abington also criticized the Israeli operations (Operation Defensive Shield) which had collected documentation of how the zakat committees were funded, along with with posters of Hamas bombers etc. He told the court that the U.S. State Department had considered these operations to be a "propaganda exercise by the Israelis to undermine the Palestinian Authority."

 

Speaking of the thousands of documents seized by Israelis, Abington said: "You don't know where they came from, how they are related to each other. If you are an American analyst, you can't rely on those documents as showing a true picture." He also claimed that the Israelis were using the seized documents "to undermine the reputation of the Palestinian Authority." He said he believed the information from Israeli intelligence was unreliable and thought the Israelis intended to "influence U.S. thinking".

 

After he left his post as Consul General in Jerusalem, Abington continued to act as an official paid consultant the Palestinian Authority. In 2005 he argued that violence between Palestinians and Israelis would end if the international community pressured Israel to end its "occupation of Palestine."

 

Abington told the jury that Hamas was a "radical fundamentalist" organization, but denied that it was Islamist. Prosecutor Barry Jonas pointed out Abington's paid role as PA consultant, and also how Abington had negotiated a $400 million deal between the U.S. State Department and Yasser Arafat of the PLO. Abington said he acted in this "consultancy" capacity from 1999 to 2005, earning $750,000 for his services when he first lobbied for the Palestinian government in 1999, subsequently receiving per annum until 2005. He ceased this role when Hamas was elected to run the Palestinian government. Jonas suggested that Abington left his post at the U.S. State Department because he had become too biased towards the Palestinians. Abington denied this.

 

Abington claimed that many of the zakat committees funded by HLF were also funded by USAID. The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) states that the jury was not informed that USAID ended HLF's registration in September 2000. IPT obtained a letter from USAID to defendant Shukri Abu Baker. In this letter the State Department informs him that HLF's registration with USAID had been decided in August 2000 to be "contrary to the national defense and foreign policy interests of the United States."

 

On Wednesday September 5th Abington was asked about a letter which had been found at the home of Ismail Elbarrase, an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial brief and an assistant to Mousa Abu Marzook. In this letter, the Qalqilya zakat committee was referred to thus: "All of it is ours and it is guaranteed." Abington claimed he knew nothing of this (other zakat committees are mentioned in this document, with comments about how many Hamas individuals had infiltrated them). Abington again questioned the reliablity of evidence provided by Israelis.

 

Abington did not accept that HLF had links with the Muslim Brotherhood. He said that though Hamas was a "descendant" of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, the group is no longer connected to the Brotherhood. On Tuesday, Abington had denied that the Islamic Charitable Society of Hebron was funded with money from Hamas. This charity had received money from HLF. On Wednesday, Abington was again questioned about this charity's links to Hamas, and he said that "no one has all the information on their fingertips.”

 

In the letter from 1991 by Ismail Elbarrase of Hamas, the name of the Islamic Charitable Society of Hebron is accompanied by the words "All of it is ours. It has Adnan (illegible), Abdel Khalik Al Natshe and Hashen El Nayshe, our people." (This charity continues to be funded by U.K.-based Hamas "charity" Interpal, which was designated by the US as a terrorist entity on August 22, 2003.)

 

Abington was questioned about a letter dated August 1, 1995 sent by Hamas to Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which complained about the U.S. detention of senior Hamas leader and former U.S. resident Mousa Abu Marzook. In this letter, Hamas warned that should Marzook be handed over to the Israelis (who had issued an extradition warrant which had initially led to Marzook's arrest on July 25, 1995), such an action would "provoke a wave of outrage against the United States in various parts of the Arab and Muslims world. Serious repercussions could ensue as a result."

 

Abington said that he advised the Clinton administration against deporting Marzook to Israel. He told Barry Jonas that he had advised the Clinton administration that if Marzook was sent to Israel, there would be serious consequences, resulting in anti-U.S. sentiment in the Muslim world and among Palestinians. (This tallies with Hamas' threat in the 1995 letter. On April 3, 1997, Israel said that it would not pursue its extradition case against Mousa Abu Marzook).

 

On Monday September 10th, testimony for the defense was given by Dr. Nathan J. Brown gave testimony for the defense. Brown has authored four books on the Middle East, and is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

 

Brown questioned the reliability of the testimony of Israeli agent "Avi," who maintained that HLF had sent funds to Palestinaian zakat committees staffed by Hamas members. Brown said that Avi had relied too much on documentation seized during "Operation Defensive Shield." He said: "His lack of political and historical background would not allow him to approach press accounts with a critical eye."

 

He claimed that Hamas posters eulogizing Hamas suicide terrorists, which adorned many zakat committee premises, did not prove that the committees themselves were tied to terrorism. He said: "I was struck that every blank wall was plastered with posters of martyrs... Hamas at this point is a party with broad popular support. These zakat committees are not administrative-heavy groups. Their job is to collect money, certify need and give it out. It's not an institution where a director would have much latitude as to what the zakat is doing."

 

Brown admitted that he was not an expert on terrorism and had only recently studied Hamas. Asked by prosecutor Nathan Garrett if he was a Hamas "expert," Brown replied: "I'm in the process of becoming one." Brown said he was writing a book on Hamas. He said that Hamas was "leading the Palestinians into disaster" and said it was "an organization that engages in terrorism, but that's not all they do."

 

On Tuesday September 18th, Greg Westfall, attorney for defendant Mohammed El-Mezain, addressed the jury. He discussed details of a wiretapped phone conversation between his client and Abdel Rahman Odeh, which was made on January 22, 1995. Odeh had called to tell El-Mezain that a Hamas suicide attack had taken place in Dizengoph Street in Beit Leed village, Tel Aviv. 18 Israeli soldiers were killed and 60 were injured.

 

Defendant Odeh had said "A beautiful operation just took place". El-Mazein replied "May it be good, God willing." He had later said of the news: "Praised be Almighty God." Westfall tried to justify the praise of the bombing by stating that "only a year before" Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein had killed 29 Muslims at prayer in Hebron.

 

Westfall said that Jewish settlers had erected a monument to Goldstein, and said: "And how that looks through the eyes of a Palestinian is the only way you can begin to understand why Mr. Odeh might be happy to see something bad happen to Israel."

 

Ms. Marlo Cadeddu, attorney for Mufid Abdulqader, had earlier tried to justify why her client had appeared in a videotaped theatrical presentation pretending to "kill a Jew" by invoking his First Amendment rights – freedom of speech. She said she did not need to explain such videotapes. "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means that you can talk, you can sing, you can perform a skit about anything you like." Like Westfall, she tried to justify her client's actions by placing them into the context of the climate of the times with "all this emotion around the world. People have been under occupation for decades."

 

The closing arguments in the trial included accusations and counter-accusations. Prosecutor Barry Jonas told the jurors that the defendants had practiced deceptions, citing a statement made by defendant Shukri Abu Baker (president of HLF) at the Philadelphia hotel meeting in October 1993. In FBI wiretap evidence, Shukri Abu Baker had said: "War is deception. Deceive, camouflage. Pretend that you're leaving while you're walking that way... Deceive your enemy."

 

Nancy Hollander is attorney for Shukri Abu Baker. She said that there had been mistrust of government, and disagreed with the evidence provided by Israeli Shin Bet agent "Avi." She maintained that the prosecution's case had been misleading. She referred to translation errors in the government transcripts. Hollander also claimed that the prosecution had not proved that zakat committees were Hamas-controlled, or that HLF donations had assisted Hamas.

 

Barry Jonas reminded jurors of a security manual that had been found at defendant Ghassan Elashi's company INFOCOM. This had included instructions on how to avoid detection. This manual followed the directives agreed before the 1993 Philadelphia meeting, to only refer to Hamas as "Samah." It advised "agreeing on a cover for the reason of the meeting" as well as "avoiding having the meetings at the homes of those who are under watch" and "disconnecting the phone/fax during the meeting and not using the phone during meetings." Additionally, the security manual advised encrypting calls, and urged agreeing "on a fixed cycle at which previous financial statements are destroyed."

 

Barry Jonas noted that in August 2000, a security company (Executive Protection Group) had provided a counter-surveillance sweep of the Holy Land Foundation offices, to remove bugs. Jonas asked the jury more than once: "Is this what a real charity would do?"

 

Jonas made reference to a sworn affidavit made by defendant Shukri Abu Baker in 2002. Baker stated: "I reject and abhor Hamas, its goals and its methods. I reject terrorism by anyone." Jonas pointed out the contradiction of how Shukri Abu Baker had published an article in the IAP's newsletter Filastine entitled "Hayzum Hamas has Arrived." The title of this anti-Israeli polemic refers to the name of the horse owned by the angel Gabriel. The piece ends: " 'Hayzum,' Hamas has arrived... and we will not accept any other than Hamas."

 

Nancy Hollander said of the government's evidence: "If anything, one thing makes you hesitate, that's all the doubt you need to find Shukri not guilty."

 

Jonas stated: "For over 13 years the defendants deceived the American public that they were a legitimate charity." He mentioned the letter from New Jersey that accompanied a donation from “Sultan Mahmoud,” which had called for the money to be employed "for relief supplies and weapons to crush the hated enemy." Jonas highlighted how HLF had kept his donation and added the donor's name to its mailing list.

 

He said: "Don't let the defendants deceive you that what they did was to support widows and orphans. What they did in supporting Hamas created widows and orphans." He had earlier stated that Hamas' 1998 Charter, which has not been amended, calls for Israel's destruction, and that "zakat" deeds carried out by Hamas were only a "a means to an end."

 

The jury began their deliberations on Wednesday afternoon, September 19, 2007. Prosecutor Nathan Garrett admitted earlier in the day that the task before the jurors was daunting: "What we ask of you folks is entirely unreasonable: sit here for eight weeks and listen to us talk about hundreds and hundreds of documents. You asked for a drink of water, and we turned on the fire hose.... I want you to bring your life experience and your common sense, your God-given common sense of reason."

 

Garrett said that he had been "embarrassed" by the testimony of Edward Abington, considering his former position as U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem.

 

The jury has to agree unanimously to 197 individual decisions, connected with the multiple-count indictments. These are contained in a 59-page verdict document.

 

My account of the trial is only a brief summary, made at a distance from the events, and relying upon the work provided by others (Investigative Project on Terrorism and the NEFA Foundation in particular). Perhaps this account does not do justice to the mountain of evidence presented before the jurors, but it gives a general sense of the trial's highlights.

 

The verdict, when it comes, will be seen as a benchmark for future cases of such magnitude. The documentary evidence compiled by FBI Special Agent Lara Burns could on its own terms fill several books, whatever the trial's eventual outcome. We can now only wait for the jurors' decisions.

# # #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He also writes for Spero News. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society.

read full author bio here


If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this columfn are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.




Click here to support Family Security Matters