US prosecutors are accusing a legal permanent resident of Louisiana of participating in the October 7 attacks in Israel. Yet their case relies almost entirely on intelligence from Israel which the defendant’s lawyers are unable to see, and an Israeli agent they can not identify.
That agent may be Lt. Col. Avi Kalo, who previously testified anonymously in the hyper-politicized, constitutionally questionable Holy Land Foundation trial.
The US Department of Justice has accused a 33-year-old Louisiana resident named Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub al-Muhtadi of joining Hamas’ attack on Israel on the morning of October 7. They say Muhtadi was a member of the military wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a small resistance organization in Gaza, and that Muhtadi mobilized others to join the fight on October 7, when Hamas and other groups mounted their attack.
Prosecutors allege that he returned to Gaza after the attack, then applied for a US visa in June of 2024, met a consular official at the US embassy in Cairo in August of that year and immigrated to the US the next month, having lied about his connections with the DFLP on his visa application.
Muhtadi was arrested in October 2025. He was originally charged with conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization resulting in death and visa fraud. He has pled not guilty, and his family has condemned the government’s charges as “fabricated” and “false.”
As of June 17, prosecutors were already modifying some of their allegations. A superseding indictment filed by prosecutors that day removed the phrase “resulting in death” from the original conspiracy charge, according to The Advocate. It also added a second charge of conspiracy to provide support to a terrorist organization and a charge of making a false statement within the jurisdiction of the US (the last referring to statements on his visa application).
The bulk of the US government’s evidence comes from Israel. According to court documents, it was Israel that tipped American authorities off to Muhtadi and his alleged participation in the October 7 attacks. An Israeli cell phone provider says it captured Muhtadi’s cell phone pinging a tower near Kibbutz Kfar Aza, which was attacked on October 7; Israel appears to have provided the US with phone calls they say Muhtadi made that day.
To certify the “authenticity” of the Israeli exhibits supposedly incriminating Muhtadi, the US DOJ has summoned an Israeli agent to testify. However, his identity is classified under Israeli law, making it nearly impossible for the defense to challenge his credibility during cross-examination.
According to court filings noted by journalist Ken Silva, that Israeli agent has been identified only as “Avi,” and is described as a “longtime employee of the Israeli security agency” who currently directs the Assessment Division of the Israeli Bureau of Counter-Terror Financing.
The background of the anonymous Israeli agent closely resembles that of Lt. Col. Avi Kalo. A veteran Israeli Security Agency officer, Kalo’s bio at Israel’s Reichman University states that he previously provided “legal support to the U.S. Department of Justice in the successful flagship prosecution of a senior Hamas figures in from the ‘Holy Land Foundation’ case.”
An Israeli intelligence officer known only as “Avi” played a starring role in that trial, providing anonymous “expert” witness testimony to help US prosecutors secure convictions of the directors of a federally registered US charity called the Holy Land Foundation for knowingly providing material support for terrorism. Thanks to Lt. Col. Kalo’s boastful online bio, it appears clear that he was the pseudonymous witness referred to as “Avi.”
During the Holy Land trials, Israeli government insisted on special protective measures to protect the identity of “Avi,” clearing the courtroom of everyone except attorneys, government officials and the defendants’ immediate family members. In an unprecedented move, Judge A. Joe Fish granted the foreign government’s request, allowing an anonymous foreign intelligence official to appear as an expert witness in an American courtroom for perhaps the first time in history.
On the witness stand, “Avi” claimed that the zakat charity committees sponsored by Holy Land were fronts for Hamas. In place of concrete evidence, the Israeli agent offered his olfactory and visual observations: “We saw it in the key chain,” he claimed. “Again in the videos, posters. It’s all around them. Everywhere. The color of Hamas, the smell of Hamas. It’s every-where…”
The 2007 Holy Land trial resulted in a hung jury after the US government admitted government no foundation money had gone to any zakat committee under the control of Hamas, or any other designated “terrorist” group. In fact, Holy Land was among a small handful of charities which had provided food to a substantial percentage of the Palestinian population in Gaza.
In the retrial a year later, the US government secured the convictions it sought thanks to testimony from “Avi” and a series of dubious documents provided by the IDF.
During cross-examination in the retrial, Holy Land counsel Joshua Dratel challenged “Avi”: “And there is no way that we could do any research on you or your writings, or your work, or who you are, or your credentials. Right? Because we don’t know your real name.”
“Avi” responded, “Only what you heard here, yes. You cannot research me. That is correct.”
The unconstitutional Israeli tactics helped send all five defendants away on long prison terms. Two of the defendants, Shukri Baker and Ghassan Elashi, received 65 year sentences.
Now, in the Muhtadi case, a judge has authorized the ploy all over again to convict a Palestinian in a US court – and possibly with the same anonymous “Avi” as a star witness.
Israel obstructs defense from gathering witnesses, US claims Israel does not work “alongside us”
Muhtadi has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His family has accused the US DOJ of having “fabricate[d] false accusations against our son Mahmoud with the aim of deporting him from the United States and tearing apart his small family that he cares for there.”
Muhtadi’s lawyers are concerned that Israel, the source of almost the entire trove of incriminating information about him, is making it virtually impossible for him to mount a defense.
As his defense team pointed out, Israel controls all official entry to and exit from Gaza, which has been under near-total siege since October 7, 2023. “Mr. Muhtadi cannot simply hire any US-based investigator to walk into the camps and interview potential witnesses,” his lawyers argued in court filings. Worse, Israel’s extensive intelligence-gathering and phone-monitoring capabilities render futile any attempt to keep electronic communication in Gaza confidential. Even if Muhtadi’s team could enter Gaza at will, it’s questionable whether they could convince witnesses to open themselves up to Israeli retribution by testifying on his behalf.
Israel also apparently stands in the way of electronic and other data the defense could use, as US prosecutors argue things like file metadata and images aren’t actually theirs to give. The data is in Israel’s possession, they have complained. “The [US[ government doesn’t have them,” prosecutors said in a filing.
Despite being led to Muhtadi by Israel, building a case against him based on information collected by Israel, touting Tel Aviv’s “valuable assistance” in the announcement of his arrest, and even listing the FBI’s office in Tel Aviv under the umbrella of “Israeli authorities,” US prosecutors now claim they have no idea what information Israeli agencies might be able to provide to Muhtadi’s defense because “they do not work for or alongside us.”
As for information the US itself might possess, prosecutors have announced they plan to rely heavily on classified material. They also intend to invoke the Patriot Act and propose protective orders that can limit the defense’s access to information.
If Muhtadi is convicted, he could face deportation to Israel, where the country’s Knesset authorized the death penalty this April for Palestinians accused of “terrorism.” The bill’s author, Minister of Security Itamar Ben Gvir, introduced a new proposal this July to weaponize crocodiles against Palestinian prisoners.
Facts Only
* Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub al-Muhtadi is a 33-year-old Louisiana resident.
* Prosecutors accuse him of joining Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7.
* Prosecutors allege Muhtadi was a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine military wing.
* Al-Muhtadi allegedly returned to Gaza after the attack and applied for a U.S. visa in June 2024.
* He allegedly met with a consular official at the U.S. embassy in Cairo in August 2024 and immigrated in July 2024, reportedly lying on his visa application regarding DFLP connections.
* Al-Muhtadi was arrested in October 2025.
* Original charges included conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization resulting in death and visa fraud.
* Prosecutors modified charges to include conspiracy to provide support to a terrorist organization and making a false statement within U.S. jurisdiction.
* The bulk of the U.S. government's evidence comes from Israel, including cell phone ping data allegedly captured by an Israeli provider near Kibbutz Kfar Aza.
* The process required summoning an Israeli agent to testify, whose identity is classified under Israeli law.
Executive Summary
US prosecutors are pursuing charges against Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub al-Muhtadi, a Louisiana resident, alleging his participation in the October 7 attacks on Israel. The case relies significantly on intelligence from Israel, including evidence such as cell phone pings and phone calls allegedly made by Muhtadi, which Israel claims to have provided to U.S. authorities. Prosecutors allege that Muhtadi was a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s military wing and mobilized others to join the attack. Al-Muhtadi reportedly returned to Gaza after the attacks, sought a U.S. visa in June 2024, and immigrated in July 2024, allegedly lying about his ties to the DFLP on his application.
The evidence presented by the U.S. government stems largely from Israeli sources, necessitating testimony from an Israeli agent whose identity is classified, which complicates the defense's ability to challenge credibility. The context involves a history of controversial Israeli legal tactics in previous trials, such as the Holy Land Foundation cases, where anonymous foreign witnesses were permitted unprecedented roles, suggesting a pattern where state interests supersede standard due process. The defense contends that Israel controls movement and communication within Gaza, creating practical barriers for gathering evidence from Muhtadi or potential witnesses.
Full Take
The dynamic presented involves a power asymmetry where the pursuit of justice relies heavily on evidence originating from a state with which U.S. prosecutors have complex institutional relationships and acknowledged limitations regarding information sharing. The reliance on an unidentified Israeli agent echoes historical precedents, particularly in the Holy Land Foundation trials, where opaque testimony shaped legal outcomes despite challenges raised by defense counsel regarding witness credibility. This structure suggests that the informational advantage afforded to the prosecution is not merely a matter of evidentiary weight but a systemic feature built upon external, controlled narratives.
The practical implications concern cognitive sovereignty: when the source of critical evidence and testimonial authority is controlled by an entity with acknowledged restrictions on cooperation—such as controlling exit from Gaza or electronic communications—the defense's capacity to construct an alternative reality for the defendant is fundamentally compromised. The argument that Israel obstructs the defense, claiming non-participation in gathering witnesses, highlights a potential pattern of using state mechanisms to enforce informational bottlenecks against external scrutiny. This raises the question of whose definition of "truth" prevails when evidence streams are channeled through strategic intermediaries, and who bears the actual cost of this imposed epistemic enclosure.
Bridge questions: If reliance on intelligence from an external party necessarily sacrifices adversarial fairness, what institutional safeguards must be established to ensure that legal proceedings involving international conflict maintain genuine parity in evidentiary access? How can legal systems effectively adjudicate claims where one party explicitly claims operational control over the physical and digital space relevant to testimony? What alternative methodologies exist for corroborating or valuing intelligence when the source's inherent political context is known to influence its presentation?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as a detailed journalistic report that carefully weaves complex, adversarial information about a legal case and its geopolitical context, exhibiting high-quality sourcing and analytical depth.