WASHINGTON, 21 September 2007 — After two months of testimony, a jury must now determine whether a Texas-based Muslim charity helped needy people or Middle East terrorists. Seven attorneys spoke for 2 1/2 days during closing arguments. The trial ended Wednesday with a federal prosecutor leveling harsh personal criticisms at a former high-ranking American diplomat who contradicted Israeli intelligence and key elements of the government’s case.

At stake is the prosecution of five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. They are accused of using the now-defunct Islamic charity to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas through local Palestinian charities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. An Israeli intelligence agent testified that those local so-called zakat committees were well-known fronts for Hamas.

But retired career diplomat Edward Abington, a former US consul general in Jerusalem and one-time deputy assistant secretary at the State Department, who and also once served as the State Department’s No. 2 intelligence chief, disagreed.

Abington testified that he was briefed daily by the CIA while serving in the Middle East and never heard of any Hamas links to the Holy Land-backed charities. He also testified that he personally visited the zakat committees and found nothing suggesting Hamas involvement.

The purported Hamas link to zakat charities is crucial to the government’s case that Holy Land officials knowingly assisted terrorists. But that link relies almost entirely on the testimony of one Israeli agent, identified only as “Avi” during an unusual closed-court appearance.

Faced with Abington’s contradictions, Assistant US Attorney Nathan Garrett targeted the former ambassador’s credibility and even his diplomatic service.

In closing arguments clearly calculated to blunt Abington’s influence among jurors, the prosecutor said: “I was a bit embarrassed that he was the best the US had to send to Jerusalem.”

Prosecutors the further tried to undermine Abbington’s credibility by noting he became a lobbyist for the Palestinian Authority after retiring from the State Department.

The prosecution’s key witness was an Israeli official who said the Palestinian groups that Holy Land supported were controlled by Hamas.

The official, a lawyer in Israel’s domestic security agency, Shin Bet, was allowed to testify under a pseudonym, Avi. Spectators were forced to leave the courtroom while he was on the witness stand.

In an antagonistic summation, Garrett repeatedly sought to bolster the Israeli agent’s credibility, referring often to Avi and endorsing his testimony. Garrett also cited the timing of Holy Land’s creation, roughly the same period as the birth of Hamas.

“Look at the organization, purpose and design of the Holy Land Foundation,” Garrett said, arguing that “it doesn’t fit” that Holy Land was a legitimate charity when it was founded at the same time as Hamas, had officials with relatives who are top leaders in Hamas and sent money to Palestinian areas where Hamas has political strength.

Each of the five former Holy Land organizers is charged with supporting a terrorist organization and money laundering. The two who ran Holy Land, Shukri Abu Baker and Ghassan Elashi, are also accused of tax fraud.

In closing arguments, Linda Moreno, attorney for Elashi, defended Abington’s expertise, assailing government expert witness Matt Levitt as a “self-proclaimed expert” whose book on Hamas was “Israeli propaganda.” She said that both he and one of the government’s Israeli government agents, who testified under a pseudonym, had never been to a zakat committee. Moreno also added that the government’s case had no credibility — that it relied on “Avi, whose name we don’t know,” and on unsigned, undated documents.