Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER GERSHON, District Judge: More than 1,600 plaintiffs, consisting of United States and foreign nationals, bring claims for damages against Defendant Arab Bank, PLC, for knowingly providing banking and administrative services to various organizations identified by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations, that sponsored suicide bombings and other murderous attacks on innocent civilians in Israel. The U.S. nationals assert claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 et seq., essentially identical to those brought in Linde v. Arab Bank, 04-CV-02799, Litle v. Arab Bank, 04-CV-05449, and Coulter v. Arab Bank, 05-CV-00365, which were addressed in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 384 F.Supp.2d 571 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (“Arab Bank I”). The foreign nationals make similar factual allegations, but assert violations of the law of nations and base jurisdiction on the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Both the U.S. nationals and the foreign nationals also assert federal common law claims, namely, assisting in the intentional injury of others, reckless disregard of injury to others, wrongful death, survival, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS Plaintiffs allege that, since the formation of Israel in 1948, Palestinian paramilitary and terrorist organizations have sought to destroy it through, inter alia, the systematic murder of Jews and other civilians in Israel. In December 1987, a collective Palestinian uprising, or intifada, erupted against Israel in the West Bank and in Gaza. In late September 2000, a second Palestinian intifada^ or Al Aqsa Intifada or Intifada Al Quds (the “Second Intifada”), erupted after the collapse of peace negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Each intifada was characterized by systematic and widespread terror campaigns designed to kill Jews and Israelis, as well as to coerce the civilian population of Israel to cause Israel to cede territory to the Palestinians and ultimately to destroy the Jewish state. With the outbreak of the Second Intifada, several terrorist organizations intensified the terror campaign of widespread and systematic suicide bombings and other murderous attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, resulting in the death and injury of thousands of individuals, the majority of which were innocent civilians. Plaintiffs identify the Islamic Resistance Movement (“HAMAS”), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (“PIJ”), the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (“AAMB”), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (“PFLP”) (collectively “the terrorist organizations”) as prominent terrorist organizations in the Second Intifada, operating in Palestinian-controlled territory and acting with the united purpose of eradicating the State of Israel through a campaign of terror, genocide, and crimes against humanity. HA-MAS was named a Specially Designated Terrorist entity (“SDT”) by the U.S. government in 1995 and designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (“FTO”) by the U.S. Secretary of State in 1997. The PIJ was named as an SDT in 1995 and designated an FTO by the U.S. Secretary of State in 1997. The PFLP was named an SDT in 1995 and an FTO in 1997. Finally, HAMAS, the PIJ, and the AAMB were each designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity (“SDGT”). Plaintiffs allege that these terrorist organizations openly adhere to a shared mission, “to topple and eradicate the State of Israel, murder or throw out the Jews, and liberate the area by replacing it with an Islamic and/or Palestine state.... ” The terrorist organizations seek to accomplish their shared goal by cooperating in the planning and commission of suicide bombings and other murderous attacks and by providing financial support to the relatives of “martyrs” and those injured in or imprisoned for perpetrating attacks. This has resulted in the systematic and continuous killing and injury of thousands of unarmed innocent civilians in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Plaintiffs allege that several purported charitable organizations, including the Popular Committee for Support of the Intifada (the “Popular Committee”), the Coalition of Benevolence (the “Coalition”), the Humanitarian Relief Association (the “HRA”), the Al-Ansar Society, and the Tulkarem Charitable Committee, are in fact front organizations for the terrorist organizations and act as fund-raising apparatuses that raise and launder funds to subsidize the Second Intifada and to bankroll the terrorist organizations. Plaintiffs allege that two specific committees were created in Saudi Arabia to raise funds to aid in the proliferation of the objectives of HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP: (1) the Popular Committee for Assisting the Palestinian Mujahideen (the “Mujahideen Committee”); and (2) in 2002, the Saudi Committee for Aid to the Al-Quds Intifada (the “Saudi Committee”). These two organizations set up accounts labeled “Account 98” accounts at various banks in Saudi Arabia, including the Arab National Bank (of which defendant Arab Bank owns a 40% interest), to raise funds for the families of “martyrs” of HAMAS, the AAMB, the PIJ, and the PFLP. In addition, public and private donations were deposited in numerous accounts established in various financial institutions in the Middle East, primary among them Arab Bank, for the explicit purpose of providing funds to families of “martyrs” of HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP. According to the amended complaints, Arab Bank “knowingly and intentionally, both directly and indirectly, aided and abetted and intentionally facilitated the attacks by HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP by soliciting, collecting, transmitting, disbursing and providing the financial resources that allowed those organizations to flourish and to engage in a campaign of terror, genocide, and crimes against humanity in an attempt to eradicate the Israeli presence from the Middle East landscape.” According to plaintiffs, Arab Bank is one of the largest financial institutions in the Middle East and is headquartered in Jordan. It operates through various sister institutions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, which collectively make up the Arab Bank Group. To this end, Arab Bank owns a 40% interest in Saudi Arabia’s Arab National Bank. Arab Bank has over 400 branch offices in over twenty-five countries, including branches located in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the United States. Its U.S. branch, located in New York, provides financial services that include clearing and correspondent banking services to its foreign bank branches, affiliated banking institutions (those that are owned or controlled by Arab Bank Group), and other foreign banks. Plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank was part of a formalized system of financing that HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP rely upon to plan, fund, and carry out the suicide bombings and other murderous attacks. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank materially supported the efforts and goals of the terrorist organizations in two ways. First, Arab Bank provided banking services, including maintaining accounts, for HAMAS and other terrorist organizations. With respect to HAMAS specifically, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank provided banking services to HAMAS directly by collecting funds into HAMAS accounts in its Beirut, Lebanon and Gaza Strip branches. Supporters knew to donate to HAMAS directly through Arab Bank because the HAMAS website directed supporters to make contributions to Arab Bank’s Gaza Strip branch and because there were various advertisements publicized throughout the Middle East calling for donations to Arab Bank accounts. Arab Bank knew that the donations were being collected for terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs also allege that Arab Bank maintained accounts and solicited and collected funds for the various charitable organizations, including the Popular Committee, organizations that are part of the Coalition, the HRA, the Al-Ansar Society and the Tulkarem Charitable Committee, all of which it knew are affiliated with the various terrorist organizations. In addition, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank maintained accounts for individual supporters of terrorist organizations, such as HAMAS and al Qaeda. Arab Bank knew that the accounts of these various organizations and individuals were being used to fund the suicide bombings and other attacks sponsored by the terrorist organizations. Finally, Arab Bank laundered funds for the terrorist and front organizations, including the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), which raised funds for HAMAS in the United States. Plaintiffs’ second factual theory is that Arab Bank administered the financial infrastructure by which the Saudi Committee distributed a comprehensive benefit of $5,316.06 to designated families of Palestinian “martyrs” and those wounded or imprisoned in perpetrating terrorist attacks. Despite its knowledge that the Saudi Committee was distributing this benefit to families of “martyrs,” Arab Bank essentially served as a “paymaster” through its branch offices within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Plaintiffs allege that the Saudi Committee, as of November 2001, had paid millions of dollars to suicide bombers or their beneficiaries through Arab Bank. Additionally, Arab Bank has transmitted millions of dollars to, among others, various institutions and individuals on behalf of the Saudi Committee. According to plaintiffs’ allegations, Arab Bank played an integral role in the structured financial process by which the funds in the “Account 98” accounts were transferred to their intended beneficiaries. The first step was to create and maintain a database of persons eligible to receive payments. To accomplish that, the Saudi Committee prepared a list of potential beneficiaries, including the families of “martyrs” and of prisoners. After verifying the names of the beneficiaries, their contact information, and their injury with Palestinian officials, the Saudi Committee coordinated with Arab Bank. Specifically, the Saudi Committee consulted with Arab Bank and local representatives of HAMAS to finalize the lists of beneficiaries. The next step, as alleged by plaintiffs, was to transfer the funds contained in the “Account 98” accounts in the various banks to accounts at Arab Bank for the beneficiaries. The Saudi Committee opened an account at Arab Bank in the beneficiary’s name and deposited a standard amount of U.S. dollars or Saudi Riyals into the account. Because Saudi Riyals cannot be conveniently converted to Israeli currency, Arab Bank facilitated that conversion by routing those funds through its New York branch, where they were converted to U.S. dollars and then to Israeli currency. Thus, “Account 98” funds “often, if not always,” went through Arab Bank’s branch in New York before being transferred to accounts in the Middle East. Plaintiffs allege that, after the funds were transferred to designated accounts in the Arab Bank branches in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Arab Bank distributed the money to beneficiaries with appropriate documentation. To ensure that only families of bona fide “martyrs” received disbursements, the Saudi Committee required beneficiaries to present registration cards to Arab Bank to receive remittances. The registration card was an official certification from the Palestinian Authority establishing the bona tides of the “martyr.” Arab Bank allegedly provided instructions to the general public on how to qualify and collect money. Thus, plaintiffs claim that Arab Bank not only disbursed the funds to the beneficiaries, but also participated in the formalized process that required the families of “martyrs” to obtain official certification of their deceased relatives’ status as bona fide “martyrs.” According to plaintiffs, the Saudi Committee paid and transmitted benefits to approximately 200 fallen “martyrs” through the program administered by Arab Bank in the first year of its existence alone. They also allege that the Saudi Committee openly declared that its funds were transmitted and distributed to the families of “martyrs” through Arab Bank. Plaintiffs allege that there is a direct correlation between the number of attacks, including suicide bombings, and the amount of funds held by the Mujahideen and Saudi Committees. Plaintiffs allege that the payment and promise of payment to families of “martyrs” incentivized and encouraged potential suicide bombers. Thus, plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank facilitated and provided an incentive for the suicide bombings and other murderous attacks in that the individual attackers knew that, if they committed an attack, their families would be supported by the funds held in their names by Arab Bank. Each plaintiff alleges that he or she is a victim, or family member of a victim, of the actions of suicide bombers and murderers who were supported, encouraged, and enticed by funds collected and disbursed by Arab Bank. In their amended complaints, plaintiffs provide the names of various suicide bombers and gunmen whose families received payment through the financing process described above and whose attacks caused the injuries or deaths which are the subject of these suits. While the allegations of each plaintiff are unique, to summarize each plaintiffs’ allegations would be impractical given the number of plaintiffs; thus, this opinion will summarize only the allegations of a few representative individuals from each of the amended complaints. The following allegations are from the Almog amended complaint: On February 22, 2004, an AAMB suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem killed eight people and injured over sixty others, including family members of plaintiffs who are Iraqi, Moroccan, and Israeli citizens. On October 4, 2003, a PIJ suicide bombing at the Maxim Restaurant in Haifa killed twenty-one people, including family members of plaintiffs who are Israeli and U.S. citizens. On May 19, 2003, a PIJ suicide bombing at the Amakim Mall in Afula, killed three and wounded seventy people, including family members of plaintiffs who are Uk-ranian and Israeli citizens. On April 30, 2003, a suicide bombing in a beach-side pub in Tel Aviv killed two and injured over fifty people, including family members of plaintiffs who are United States, French, Israeli, United Kingdom, South African, Canadian, and Australian citizens. On October 20, 2002, a HAMAS sniper shot and killed Keivan Chen, son of plaintiff Rahel Cohen, a citizen of Iran. On December 1, 2001, two HAMAS suicide bombers detonated explosive devices in Jerusalem, killing eleven people, including family members of plaintiffs who are French and Israeli citizens. On June 18, 2001, a HAMAS suicide bombing of a dance club in Tel Aviv killed and injured several youths, including family members of plaintiffs who are Russian, Israeli, Belarusian, Turkmenian, Uzbeki, and Ukranian citizens. The allegations in the Afriat-Kurtzer amended complaint arise from a single suicide bombing on January 22, 1995, at the Beit Lid junction near Netanya. The PIJ claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed nineteen people and injured many others, whose family members are plaintiffs of Israeli, Argentinian, and U.S. citizenry. Based on these allegations, both the Al-mog and Afriat-Kurtzer plaintiffs assert the following claims: In Count One, the U.S. nationals claim that Arab Bank violated various provisions of the ATA. Specifically, the U.S. nationals allege Arab Bank violated: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2339A by providing material support, such as financial services, knowing or intending that such services would be used to carry out prohibited criminal acts; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(l) by knowingly providing material support, such as financial services, to a terrorist organization; (3) 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(2) by failing to retain possession of or maintain control over funds or report to the Secretary of the Treasury the existence of funds in which terrorist organizations had an interest when it became aware that it had possession of, or control over, such funds; and (4) 18 U.S.C. § 2339C by directly and indirectly collecting funds to finance terrorism. In Count Two, the U.S. nationals allege that Arab Bank aided and abetted violations of the ATA by collecting and disbursing funds knowing they would be used to, inter alia, support, encourage, and reward terrorist activities in Israel, including suicide bombings and murder. In Count Three, the foreign nationals claim that Arab Bank violated the law of nations by financing the suicide bombings and other murderous attacks directed at civilians committed by HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP. They further allege that Arab Bank aided and abetted and intentionally facilitated a violation of international law by providing funds to or collecting funds for HAMAH, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP, intending or knowing that such funds would be used to carry out an offense under international law. The foreign nationals allege in Count Four that Arab Bank aided and abetted, was complicit in, intentionally facilitated, and participated in a joint venture to engage in acts of genocide in violation of the law of nations by providing financial and other practical assistance, encouragement or moral support to HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP. In Count Five, the foreign nationals claim that Arab Bank aided and abetted, was complicit in, intentionally facilitated, and participated in a joint venture to engage in the planning, preparation, or execution of crimes against humanity in violation of the law of nations by providing financial and other practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to HA-MAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP. The remainder of the Counts of both amended complaints allege various torts said to arise under federal common law. Specifically, Count Six alleges that Arab Bank assisted in the intentional injury of others by a third party by allowing its facilities to be used by HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP in order to support and encourage suicide bombings and other murderous attacks; Count Seven alleges that Arab Bank recklessly disregarded injury to others; Count Eight alleges claims for wrongful death; Count Nine alleges “survival” claims; and Count Ten alleges claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. DISCUSSION I. Pleading and Motion to Dismiss Standards Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading sets forth a claim for relief if it contains: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Under this simplified pleading standard, a court should not dismiss a complaint unless no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the complaint. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir.2006). On the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the court may look beyond the pleadings in determining international law. Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 255 n. 30 (2d Cir.2003). When reviewing a motion to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), a court should decide the jurisdictional question first. Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Alabama Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir.1990). II. Anti-Terrorism Act Claims A. Brief Background of the ATA There have been a series of acts of Congress each entitled the “Anti-Terrorism Act.” The first Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in 1987. See Pub.L. No. 100-204, §§ 1001-1005, 101 Stat. 1406 (1987). The ATA of 1987 contained Congressional findings and determinations, including the determination that the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) is a terrorist organization. Id. § 1002. The first ATA also enacted 22 U.S.C. § 5202, which prohibits certain actions with regard to the PLO. Id. § 1003. The second Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in 1990, and it created several terrorism-related provisions, as well as re-designating § 2331 of Title 18 of the U.S.Code to § 2332. See Pub.L. No. 101-519, § 132, 104 Stat. 2240, 2250 (1990). The newly-redesignated § 2332 provided for criminal penalties for conduct occurring outside the United States that harmed, either by death or serious bodily injury, U.S. nationals. Id. The newly-enacted § 2331 provided definitions for various terms as used in that particular chapter of Title 18. Id. The other sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, §§ 2333-2338 (excluding sections 2332a-h), provided, inter alia, U.S. nationals with civil remedies for acts of international terrorism, the district courts with jurisdiction, and a statute of limitations period for civil claims. Id. In 1991, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 was repealed in its entirety. See Pub.L. No. 102-27, § 402, 105 Stat. 130, 155 (1991), as amended, Military Construction Appropriations Act, Pub.L. No. 102-136, § 126, 105 Stat. 637, 643 (1991) (stating that “[effective November 5,1990, chapter 113A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as if section 132 of Public Law 101-519 [the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990] had not been enacted”). The substantive provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 were reenacted in 1992. See Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102-572, § 1003, 106 Stat. 4506, 4521-24 (1992). Although the substance of the provisions remained virtually unchanged, the newly-enacted public law did not designate a short title, previously the Anti-Terrorism Act, for the collection of provisions. The terrorism-related provisions, as reenacted, are codified in §§ 2331-2338 of chapter 113B of Title 18 of the U.S.Code (excluding sections 2332a-h). The remainder of the sections of Chapter 113B of Title 18 of the U.S.Code, §§ 2332a-h and §§ 2339-2339D, which also relate to terrorism, were enacted by various other laws, including the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA PATRIOT Act”), Pub.L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). B. Anti-Terrorism Act Claims Arab Bank moves to dismiss the claims of the U.S. nationals brought under the ATA on essentially the same grounds raised in Arab Bank I. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, Arab Bank’s motion to dismiss the ATA claims is denied in part and granted in part. Like the plaintiffs in Arab Bank I, the current plaintiffs bring their suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333, which provides that any U.S. national may sue for an injury sustained “by reason of an act of international terrorism.” 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). “International terrorism” is defined as activities that: (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and (C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum[.] 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1). Plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank violated: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2339A by providing material support or resources to terrorists; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(l) by providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations; (3) 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(2) by failing to retain possession of or maintain control over funds or report to the Secretary of Treasury the existence of funds in which terrorist organizations had an interest when it became aware that it had possession of, or control over, such funds; and (4) 18 U.S.C. § 2339C by financing terrorism. As described in Arab Bank I, violations of Sections 2339A, 2339B(a)(1), and 2339C can serve as predicate crimes giving rise to liability under the ATA. See Arab Bank I, 384 F.Supp.2d at 580-81 (citing Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst. and Holy Land Found. For Relief And Dev., 291 F.3d 1000, 1014-15 (7th Cir.2002)). Thus, for the reasons stated in Arab Bank I with respect to those claims, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they were injured by reason of an act of international terrorism. However, plaintiffs’ claims under § 2339B (a)(2) “are neither criminal violations nor acts of international terrorism, as defined by the statute” and must therefore be dismissed. See id. at 590 (stating that “this claim is an attempt to recast civil violations of the reporting requirements as criminal acts of providing material support”). Civil aiding and abetting liability, as well as conspiracy liability, is available under the ATA, and Arab Bank’s alleged conduct falls within the scope of such liability. Id. at 582-85 (citing Boim, 291 F.3d at 1018-21 and Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 488-89 (D.C.Cir.1983)). With respect to conspiracy, plaintiffs adequately allege that Arab Bank knowingly and intentionally provided services to organizations it knew to be terrorist organizations and that they were injured by an overt act which was committed in furtherance of the common scheme. Arab Bank and the terrorist organizations were participants in a common plan under which Arab Bank supplied necessary financial services to the organizations and administered the “martyr” benefit plan. These allegations support not only the existence of an agreement, but also Arab Bank’s knowing and intentional participation in the agreement’s illegal goals. See id. at 584. With respect to aiding and abetting liability, the financial services provided by Arab Bank, and the administration of the benefit plan, are alleged to have provided substantial assistance to international terrorism and encouraged terrorists to act. See id. Thus, Arab Bank’s alleged conduct is a sufficient basis for liability under the broad scope of the ATA. Finally, plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient with respect to Arab Bank’s knowledge and intent. See id. at 585-87. None of the provisions of the ATA imposes a heightened pleading standard, nor do any require that Arab Bank have had the specific intent to cause the specific acts which injured plaintiffs. See Arab Bank I, 384 F.Supp.2d at 585-86. It is sufficient that Arab Bank played a role in a well-publicized plan to reward terrorists killed and injured in suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel; knew that the groups to which it provided services were engaged in terrorist activities; and knew that the funds it received as deposits and transmitted to various organizations were to be used for conducting acts of international terrorism. See id. at 588. In conclusion, as in Arab Bank I, the claims in Count One of both the Almog and Afriat-Kurtzer amended complaints alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(2) (failure to retain funds and to report the existence of certain funds) are dismissed. See id. at 589-90. The motion to dismiss is denied as to all other ATA claims in Counts One and Two pursuant to the reasoning in Arab Bank I. III. Alien Tort Claims Act Claims The ATS provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. On its face, the statute requires that plaintiffs must 1) be aliens, 2) claiming damages for a tort only, 3) resulting from a violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. Flores, 414 F.3d at 242. Arab Bank moves to dismiss the claims of the foreign nationals brought under the ATS, arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because plaintiffs have failed to plead a violation of the law of nations. Neither the Almog nor the AfriaU-Kurtzer plaintiffs assert that the torts they allege are in violation of a treaty of the United States; rather, they assert a violation of the law of nations. The essential issues in contention are therefore whether plaintiffs have pled a violation of the law of nations that should be recognized by this court under the ATS, and whether Arab Bank can be liable for aiding and abetting those violations. Any discussion of the ATS must begin with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004). Humberto Alvarez-Machain, the plaintiff in Sosa, was a Mexican national who had been indicted for the torture and murder of an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (the “DEA”). Id. at 697-98, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The DEA authorized a plan whereby a group of Mexican nationals, including Jose Francisco Sosa, seized Alvarez-Machain and brought him back to the United States for trial. Id. Alvarez-Machain brought a civil action against Sosa, among others, seeking damages under the ATS for a violation of the law of nations, namely, arbitrary arrest and detention. Id. at 699, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The defendant argued that the ATS provides courts only with subject matter jurisdiction and neither creates nor authorizes a court to recognize a cause of action for an alleged violation of the law of nations. Id. at 712, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Supreme Court, in Sosa, stated that, “although the ATS is a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action .... [t]he jurisdictional grant is best read as having been enacted on the understanding that the common law would provide a cause of action for the modest number of international law violations with a potential for personal liability at the time” the ATS was enacted. Id. at 724, 124 S.Ct. 2739. Thus, under the ATS, courts can hear a limited category of claims “defined by the law of nations and recognized at common law.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 712, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Court reasoned: [T]here is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, someday, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect .... the reasonable inference from the historical materials is that the statute was intended to have practical effect the moment it became law. Id. at 719, 724, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Court assumed that the “First Congress understood that the district courts would recognize private causes of action for certain torts in violation of the law of nations.... ” Id. at 724, 124 S.Ct. 2739. In particular, the Court stated, “[i]t would take some explaining to say now that federal courts must avert their gaze entirely from any international norm intended to protect individuals.” Id. at 730, 124 S.Ct. 2739. As the Sosa Court noted, the federal courts have previously recognized causes of action under the ATS for a violation of the law of nations. Id. at 731, 124 S.Ct. 2739. For example, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 885, 890 (2d Cir.1980), the seminal Second Circuit ATS case, which is cited repeatedly and favorably in Sosa, the Second Circuit recognized a cause of action for violation of the law of nations under the ATS. In Filartiga, the plaintiffs Dolly M.E. Filartiga and Joel Filartiga, citizens of Paraguay, brought an action under the ATS against the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion, Paraguay, for allegedly torturing and killing Joel Filartiga’s son. 630 F.2d at 878. The court held that an act of torture committed by a state official against an alien of the same nationality violates the law of nations and is thus actionable under the ATS. Id. at 884-85. Having held that, under the ATS’s jurisdictional grant, federal courts can recognize a cause of action that arose after enactment of the ATS, the Sosa Court set out the standard for doing so: “federal courts should not recognize private claims under federal common law for violations of any international law norm with less definite content and acceptance among civilized nations than the historical paradigms familiar when § 1350 was enacted.” 542 U.S. at 732, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The norm of international law may not be merely aspirational; rather, it must be specific and well-defined. Id. at 738, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Court rejected Alvarez-Machain’s contention that there was an international norm against arbitrary detention on the ground that it was not specific enough to create a federal remedy. Id. (“Whatever may be said for the broad principle Alvarez advances, in the present, imperfect world, it expresses an aspiration that exceeds any binding customary rule having the specificity we require. Creating a private cause of action to further that aspiration would go beyond any residual common law discretion we think it appropriate to exercise.”). The Court then considered the specific conduct alleged by Alvarez-Machain and concluded that “a single illegal detention of less than a day, followed by the transfer of custody to lawful authorities and a prompt arraignment, violates no norm of customary international law so well defined as to support the creation of a federal remedy.” Id. Sosa instructs that courts consider the current state of the law of nations in deciding whether to recognize a claim under the ATS. Id. at 733, 124 S.Ct. 2739. As the Filartiga Court stated, “courts must interpret international law not as it was in 1789, but as it has evolved and exists among the nations of the world today.” 630 F.2d at 881. That rules of international law evolve and ripen over time was acknowledged by the Supreme Court as early as 1900 in The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 694, 20 S.Ct. 290, 44 L.Ed. 320 (1900) (“[T]he period of a hundred years which has [elapsed since the enactment of the ATS] is amply sufficient to have enabled what originally may have rested in custom or comity, courtesy or concession, to grow, by the general assent of civilized nations, into a settled rule of international law.”). The current law of nations “is composed only of those rules that States universally abide by, or accede to, out of a sense of legal obligation and mutual concern.” Flores, 414 F.3d at 248; see also Sosa, 542 U.S. at 714-15, 124 S.Ct. 2739. First, then, in order for a rule to become a norm of international law, States must universally abide by or accede to it. Flores, 414 F.3d at 248; Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881 (“The requirement that a rule command the ‘general assent of civilized nations’ to become binding upon them all is a stringent one.”). The question is not one of whether the rule is often violated, but whether virtually all States recognize its validity. Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 884 (citing the Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights for 1979, published as Joint Comm. Print, House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, and Senate Comm, on Foreign Relations, 96th Cong.2d Sess. (Feb. 4, 1980), Introduction at 1.). Thus, that a norm of international law is honored in the breach does not diminish its binding effect as a norm of international law. Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 884 n. 15; cf. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 738 n. 29, 124 S.Ct. 2739. Second, States must abide by or accede to the rule from a sense of legal obligation and not for moral or political reasons. Flores, 414 F.3d at 248. Whether States abide by or accede to a rule out of a sense of legal obligation is shown by, among other things, state practice. Third, “[i]t is only where the nations of the world have demonstrated that the wrong is of mutual, and not merely several, concern, by means of express international accords, that a wrong generally recognized becomes an international law violation within the meaning of the statute.” Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 888 (emphasis added). Matters of “mutual” concern are those involving States’ actions performed with regard to each other. Flores, 414 F.3d at 249. Matters of “several” concern are “matters in which States are separately. and independently interested.” Id. “[0]ffenses that may be purely intra-national in their execution, such as official torture, extrajudicial killings, and genocide, do violate customary international law because the nations of the world have demonstrated that such wrongs are of mutual concern and capable of impairing international peace and security.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). The sources of law from which a court discerns the current state of the law of nations were specified by the Supreme Court in Paquete Habana: International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. 175 U.S. 677, 700, 20 S.Ct. 290, 44 L.Ed. 320 (1900); see also Sosa, 542 U.S. at 734, 124 S.Ct. 2739; Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 880. As the Filartiga Court noted, 630 F.2d at 881 n. 8, this method of discerning the current state of the law of nations is consistent with Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), which provides in pertinent part: 1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law. art. 38, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, 1060, T.S. No. 993. Accordingly, treaties, also referred to as conventions or covenants, that create legal obligations on the States party to them, constitute primary evidence of the law of nations. Flores, 414 F.3d at 256. A State’s ratification of a treaty is evidence of its intent to be legally obligated by the principles embodied in the treaty and therefore evidences the “customs and practices” of that State. Id. at 256. Treaties ratified by at least two States provide some evidence of the law of nations; if enough States ratify a treaty, a norm of international law may be established. The more States that have ratified a treaty, especially those States with greater relative influence in international affairs, the greater the treaty’s evidentiary value. Id. at 256-57. Likewise, a treaty’s evidentiary value is increased if the State parties actually implement and abide by the principles set forth in the treaty either internationally or within their own borders. Id. In addition to treaties, United Nations Security Council resolutions, which are binding on all Member States, are evidence of the law of nations. See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 374 F.Supp.2d 331, 338 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Chapter 5 of the United Nations Charter, art. 25). Finally, under Sosa, in deciding whether to recognize a claim under the ATS, a court must consider the practical consequences of making the claim available to litigants in the federal courts. 542 U.S. at 732-33, 124 S.Ct. 2739. For instance, there may be collateral consequences, such as implications on foreign relations, that advise against recognizing a claim. Id. at 727, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Court in Sosa also cautioned courts to tread lightly in exercising their discretion because courts generally have to look for “legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law” and because the “decision to create a private right of action is one better left to legislative judgment in the great majority of cases.” Id. at 726, 727, 124 S.Ct, 2739. It is against this backdrop and mindful of Sosa’s direction that the court’s “judicial power should be exercised on the understanding that the door is still ajar subject to vigilant doorkeeping, and thus open to a narrow class of international norms today,” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 729, 124 S.Ct. 2739, that I address the motion to dismiss the ATS claims. The first issue I address is whether plaintiffs have pled a violation of the law of nations. Later, I address whether the allegations against Arab Bank are sufficient for it to be held liable for those violations. A. Violation of the Law of Nations 1. Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Acts of genocide and crimes against humanity violate the law of nations and these norms are of sufficient specificity and definiteness to be recognized under the ATS. See Flores, 414 F.3d at 244 n. 18 (“Customary international law rules proscribing crimes against humanity, including genocide, and war crimes, have been enforceable against individuals since World War II.”); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 241-42 (2d Cir.1995) (“In 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared that genocide is a crime under international law that is condemned by the civilized world, whether the perpetrators are private individuals, public officials or statesmen.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 373 F.Supp.2d 7, 136 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (“[C]rimes against humanity are also deemed to be part of jus cogens — the highest standing in international legal norms. Thus, they constitute a non-derogable rule of international law.”); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 96 Civ. 8386, 2002 WL 319887, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28, 2002) (stating that crimes against humanity violate “a norm that is customary, obligatory, and well-defined in international jurisprudence”). Defendant does not contest the availability of genocide or crimes against humanity claims under the ATS but argues that plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a claim for genocide and crimes against humanity. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) defines genocide as: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Genocide Convention, art. 2, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 227, implemented in Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1091 (2000). The Second Circuit has found a violation of the international norm proscribing genocide where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant “personally planned and ordered a campaign of murder, rape, forced impregnation, and other forms of torture designed to destroy the religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.” Kadic, 70 F.3d at 242. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the “Rome Statute”), defines crimes against humanity: 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender ... or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1: (a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; (b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population .... July 17, 1998, 37 I.L.M. 999, 1004-05 (emphasis added). “Customary international law defines ‘widespread’ as ‘massive, frequent, large scale action, carried out collectively with considerable seriousness and directed against a multiplicity of victims,’ and ‘systematic’ as ‘thoroughly organised action, following a regular pattern on the basis of a common policy and involving substantial public or private resources.’ ” Wiwa, 2002 WL 319887, at *10 (quoting Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, 69 (Dec. 6, 1999)). To be a crime against humanity, the emphasis must not be on the individual but rather on the collective — the individual is victimized not because of his or her individual attributes but because of membership in a targeted civilian population. Id. (citing Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Jud., 644 (May 7, 1997)). Although the requirement of widespread or systematic action ensures that a plaintiff must allege not just one act but, instead, a course of conduct, “a single act by a perpetrator, taken within the context of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population entails individual criminal responsibility and an individual perpetrator need not commit numerous offences to be held liable.” Id. Applying the standards provided in the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute to the facts alleged here, plaintiffs have successfully stated claims for genocide and crimes against humanity. The amended complaints allege that HAMAS, the PIJ, the AAMB, and the PFLP act with the united purpose and shared mission to eradicate the State of Israel, murder or throw out the Jews, and liberate the area by replacing it with an Islamic or Palestinian State through the use of suicide bombings and other shockingly egregious violent acts. These goals reflect an intent to target people based on criteria prohibited by both the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. Plaintiffs allege that the terrorist organizations seek to accomplish their shared goal by cooperating in the planning and commission of suicide bombings and other murderous attacks using explosives, incendiary weapons, and lethal devices in public places, which has resulted in the systematic and continuous killing and injury of thousands of unarmed innocent civilians in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. These are precisely the sorts of acts proscribed in both the Genocide Convention and the Rome statute. Plaintiffs also allege that the terrorist organizations have developed and implemented a sophisticated financial structure through which they seek to accomplish their goals. The amended complaints describe dozens upon dozens of instances in which hundreds of innocent civilians were killed, and countless others injured, in attacks caused by individuals sponsored by the terrorist organizations. The acts as alleged constitute the “widespread” and “systematic” action necessary for claims of genocide and crimes against humanity. Even the acts other than suicide bombings, specifically those that defendant contends are nothing more than street crimes, may be sufficient for liability if plaintiffs can prove they were committed as part of a genocidal scheme or crimes against humanity. 2. Suicide Bombings and Other Murderous Attacks on Innocent Civilians Intended to Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population The third international norm which plaintiffs allege Arab Bank has violated is the financing of suicide bombings and other murderous attacks on innocent civilians which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. The underlying norm thus differs from the genocide norm with respect to the purpose of the perpetrators, and it differs from the more general crimes against humanity norm in that it specifically condemns bombings and other attacks intended to coerce or intimidate a civilian population. This particular claim for liability under the ATS is similar to the U.S. nationals’ claims under the ATA, but the alien plaintiffs do not rely on domestic law; rather, they rely on the body of international law described above under the discussion of genocide and crimes against humanity, plus the additional sources of international law in the ensuing discussion. In 1997, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (“Bombing Convention”). G.A. Res. 52/164, 1, U.N. Doc A/RES/52/164 (Dec. 15, 1997). The Bombing Convention states in pertinent part: Article 2 1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility: (a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or (b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss. Article 5 Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature. Dec. 15, 1997, S. TREATY DOC NO. 106-6 (1998), implemented in 18 U.S.C. § 2332f, Pub.L. No. 107-197, 116 Stat. 721 (2002). This Convention focuses on the principal method of attacking civilians alleged in the amended complaints in that it specifically makes it an offense to bomb public places or public transportation systems with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. The Bombing Convention particularly condemns such acts when they are, as alleged here, intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public or a group of persons. It specifies that such acts are not justifiable by any racial, ethnic, religious, political, or other similar considerations. In terms of its evi-dentiary weight, the Bombing Convention is significant. It has been ratified by over 120 United Nations Member States, including the United States (June 26, 2002). Cf. Kadic, 70 F.3d at 241 (noting that the Genocide Convention “has been ratified by more than 120 nations, including the United States.... ”)• In addition, the United States has implemented the Bombing Convention in the Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002. See Pub.L. No. 107-197, 116 Stat. 721 (2002), enacting 18 U.S.C. § 2332f. Two years after the Bombing Convention was adopted by the General Assembly, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (“Financing Convention”) was also adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. G.A. Res. 54/109, 1, U.N. Doc A/RES/54/109 (Dec. 9, 1999). It has been ratified by over 130 countries, including the United States (June 26, 2002). The United States implemented the Financing Convention via the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2002. See 18 U.S.C. § 2339C. The Convention makes it an offense to finance certain acts, including those proscribed in the Bombing Convention. Article 2 of the Financing Convention states: 1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an of-fence within the scope of and as defined in [the Bombing Convention]; or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. Dec. 9, 1999, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 106-49 (2000). Thus, the Financing Convention, along with the Bombing Convention, specifically condemns suicide bombings and other murderous attacks against innocent civilians intended to intimidate or coerce a population. Once again, this Convention provides that such acts “are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.” Financing Convention, art. 6. The prohibition against attacks on innocent civilians that is reflected in both of these Conventions is not a new one. The three-century-old “principle of distinction,” which requires parties to a conflict to at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants, forbids the deliberate attacking of civilians. See 2 L. Oppenheim, INTERNATIONAL Law § 214 ea, at 524 (H. Lauter-pacht ed., 7th ed.1961); 1 Jean-Marie Henokaerts & Louise Doswald-Beok, CustoMary International Humanitarian Law 3-4 (2005). State practice establishes the principle of distinction as a long-established norm of the customary law of armed conflict. Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, supra, at 3. This principle is also reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (the “Geneva Conventions”), which provides in pertinent part: In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. III, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316 (emphasis added). Under the customary law of armed conflict, as reflected in the Geneva Conventions, all “parties” to a conflict, including insurgent military groups, must adhere to these most fundamental requirements. Kadic, 70 F.3d at 243. While the principle of distinction and the Geneva Conventions apply expressly only in situations of armed conflict, their long-standing existence supports the conclusion, made explicit in the Bombing and Financing Conventions, that attacks against innocent civilians of the type alleged here are condemned by international law. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 also supports this conclusion. It states, in pertinent part, that the Security Council: 3. Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature. S.C. Res. 1566, ¶ 3, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (Oct. 8, 2004). Resolution 1566 specifically condemns attacks against civilians intended to intimidate a civilian population, regardless of who commits the attacks or what the motivation behind such attacks may be. While such resolutions cannot be relied on as a sole source of international law, they are informative as to what the current state of international law is. See Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 882 n. 9 (observing that non-self-executing agreements serve as evidence of binding principles of international law and relying on several United Nations General Assembly Resolutions); Presbyterian Church of Sudan, 374 F.Supp.2d at 338; Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F.Supp.2d 117, 128 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (“Plaintiffs refer to United Nations resolutions and the work of the Nuremberg tribunals as further evidence of the content of customary international law and the Court finds that such analogies have merit.”). In the face of all these sources evidencing universal condemnation of the types of acts alleged here,