2. What considerations can take precedence over comity?
3. What interests were at stake in the dispute at the heart of this case?
4. Did this court apply the principle of comity? Why or why not?
This case concerns claims brought by victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks committed in Israel between 1995 and 2004 [during a period commonly referred to as the Second Intifada]. Proceeding under the Anti- Terrorism Act [ ATA] and the Alien Tort Claims Act, plaintiffs [ filed a suit in a federal district court to] seek monetary damages from Arab Bank, PLC (“ Arab Bank” or the “ Bank”), a large bank headquartered in Jordan, with branches in New York, throughout the Middle East, and around the world. According to plain-tiffs, Arab Bank provided financial services and support to terrorists during this period, facilitating the attacks that caused them grave harm.