Nearly 12 years after a Pan Am jet plane exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, two Libyans are being tried for the crime. The arrangements are unusual -- the courtroom is in Holland, a Scottish judge presides -- but very civil, and there have been hints in recent days that the what the trial reveals may not please those who most sought it. PNS editor Franz Schurmann, professor emeritus of history and sociology at UC-Berkeley, has traveled widely in the Middle East and reads the Arab- and Farsi-language press.

On December 21, 1988 a Pan Am Boeing 747 exploded above the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. The 243 passengers and 16 crew members were killed. Within a week investigators determined that a bomb was responsible, and one of the most intensive investigations of a terrorist act ever was conducted -- including British, American and German intelligence services.

In mid-1990, just before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Washington Post and the London Times, citing CIA sources, reported that a radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), based in Syria, was the perpetrator of the terrorist act. The theory was the Ayatollah Khomeini had paid the group to destroy the plane in revenge for the July 3, 1988 shooting down of an Iranian Airbus carrying 290 Iranian pilgrims to Mecca by the American warship Vincennes.

So there was some surprise when, on 14 November, 1991, Scottish and American authorities named two members of Libyan intelligence services as the perpetrators. Al-Amin Khalifa Fahimaand Abdul Basset al-Megrahi (pronounced Abdel Besset el-Megraahee) were indicted April 5, 1999. A good part of the reason for the delay was that the Libyans refused to be tried in Scotland, where the alleged terrorist act took place. Eventually it was agreed that the trial would be held in the Netherlands but under Scottish law.

It should be added that law is a central part of the Islamic faith, and the Libyan leader Ghadafi was cooperative over the years of negotiation. In addition, well before this trial began, the United States had removed just about all the restrictions it had imposed on Libya, and Britain restored diplomatic relations.

The Saudi commentator sees this week as decisive because of evidence that the bombing began in Malts, an island in the Mediterranean between Sicily and Tunisia. The Maltese speak an Arabic dialect readily understood by North Africans. Although Libya was long shunned by the West, Malta had good relations with Libya, and Col. Ghadafi reciprocated.

Investigators found that the bomb was in a suitcase stuffed with clothing. That clothing was traced to a shop in Valetta, Malta's capital, called "Mary's House" -- English is widely spoken because Malta was a British colony from 1802 to 1964. The store's owner, Anthony Gauci, earlier testified that he recognized the accused al-Megrahi, but this testimony was shaken when he identified a photograph of Mohammad Abu Talb, a Lebanese member of the PFLP, as Megrahi.

This fits the defense strategy, which argues that their clients are innocent and that the evidence points to the PFLP. Coverage of the trial in both the Arabic and the western press has been mostly objective -- Al-Sharq al-Ausat generally notes that both prosecution and defense have scored points so far. However the Arabic press raises questions that have not appeared in the Western media to my knowledge.

The prosecution alleges that al-Megrahi and Fahima entered Malta on December 20, 1988, the day before the Pan Am plane blew up. They were supposed to arm the bomb and get in on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where the suitcase would be transferred to a Pan Am plane scheduled to land in London for a short stop and then proceed to New York.

Parts of the bomb's timing device were found in the debris and the device was traced to two Germans and some Czechs. A German witness testified earlier about the device. If the plane had not been delayed in London, the bomb would have exploded over the mid-Atlantic and recovering debris would have been very difficult.

At this point, the possibly key question mentioned in the Arabic papers comes in. They mention a third Libyan whose name is difficult to transliterate. The first part of the name is clear Abdul-Majeed, but the second part reads something like Ja'aaka.

Ja'aaka was the name of a member of Libyan intelligence. But he also has been protected for the last ten years under the FBI's witness protection program.

Here is literally what the Saudi paper says:

"It seems that the prosecution is going to delay the testimony of the Libyan witness Abdul-Majeed Ja'aaka who is up to a point under American security protection. According to informed sources Ja'aaka who says he worked with Megrahi and Fahima in Malta will testify that they got the bomb ready and put it inside the plane. Ja'aaka hopes that this will force the prosecution to free him from prosecution."

Here is the question. "From what the sources say Ja'aaka was in contact with the Americans before the Pan Am tragedy occurred. So the question arises: why didn't the Americans, knowing that Ja'aaka was close to Megrahi and Fahima do something to prevent the tragedy?"

In a sense, the outstanding figure in this trial has been Robert Black, who acted as a mediator between Britain and Libya.

"I feel a distinct measure of pride in the part that I, a Lockerbie boy born and bred, a simple professor of law, played in bringing [the trial] about. I have reason to suspect, however, that my government feels no sense of gratitude towards me. If the outcome of the trial is as embarrassing for them as I suspect it will be, I have some sympathy for their position. But not much."