Setting a precedent?

News that the Arab Bank rejoiced for having reached an out-of-court settlement with US plaintiffs in the New York case against the bank, for allegedly providing funding facilities to a group of people accused of causing death or harm to them should be received with mixed feelings by both stockholders and the Jordanian public.

On the one hand, the settlement takes a big financial load off the bank that had been there for a number of years, straining and sapping the resources, strength and reputation of the bank.

On the other hand, however, the settlement implies that the bank accepts a certain degree of guilt after yielding to pressure or even blackmail from the claimants.

This is all the more ominous since the size of the settlement remains a secret even to the bank’s stockholders.

The danger in yielding to pressure and accepting a settlement of sorts damages the credibility of the bank, after having stood tall and firm for so many years against all the allegation that it acted as an instrument that perpetrates acts of terrorism.

What led the bank to change course is therefore worrisome, to say the least.

On balance, the bank should have remained steadfast in rejecting all allegations against it.

By consenting to a settlement, the bank may have implicated itself unnecessarily.

There is another danger lurking in all this: by showing softness in the face of threats from American Jews who hold Israeli citizenship as well, the bank might encourage others with similar agendas to take legal action against it to reach out-of-court settlement.

There is no doubt that other predators are viewing this settlement as a inducement to seek a similar course of action, even on the most frivolous grounds, for no purpose other than to blackmail the bank and get away with it.