> Mr. Netanyahu had denounced Mr. Richard’s statement as “miserable” and rejected his initial offer to apologize to Israel’s ambassador to France, insisting he instead come to Israel, where the two men stood Friday morning in front of four Israeli flags.

Strong showing of deference here. Regarding politicians' and companies' desire to keep Israel happy: is Israel that big of a market? Or is it more of a fear of backlash from Israel-supporters throughout the world (especially strong in US conservatives)?

The hard thing with anything to do with this issue is there really are people filled with hatred on both sides and there are also valid reasons to dislike both sides. Any action, no matter how reasonable, will be misinterpreted.

That's right, but what's special about this particular conflict is that otherwise reasonable and intelligent people take completely absurd positions that they would never take in any other conflict.

Politics, religion, and sports are pretty good ways to bring out the same craziness. It's about tribalism: identifying with a particular group united against the Other is a pretty effective way to short circuit reason.

But no action is good to only one side.

Kind of pathetic but I guess the corporate world is one where principles are superseded by "pragmatism."

The CEO made remarks that were supported by the anti-Semitic and morally bankrupt BDS movement, then recanted when business was at stake.

I'd rather see him recant solely for his moral error, without money being involved, but it's better than nothing. I'm glad he came out and spoke against the anti-Jewish academic groups.

No morality in business and politics, only Power and Money matter.