Column: How CEOs are threading the needle in talking about Israel and Gaza

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is one of many American corporate leaders making statements supporting Israel in the aftermath of the Hamas terror attack. “Disappointing at best, disastrous at worst”: That’s how Anti-Defamation League Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt described the response of American corporate leaders to the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack on Israeli civilians. Gender issues are also relatively easy to talk about, Sonnenfeld says, because gender parity is easy to measure and “somewhat easier to fix.” Racial justice is harder because it seems to be more resistant to change — though on both issues of diversity “we still have a long way to go.” One factor that might explain the relative willingness of American corporations to take a stand against Hamas, which controls the Gaza administration and launched its terror attack from the Gaza Strip, is that none has any significant investment or staff in Gaza. And I’m, frankly, in awe of their commitment.” Speaking more broadly, Fraser said that “the price innocent civilians are paying as this crisis unfolds is absolutely devastating to witness.” A look at some of the corporate statements shows how they have tried to thread the needle — meeting demands by consumers and employees that they take a stand, without saying anything that could be misinterpreted as endorsing the Hamas terror attack or long-held Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, which are politically controversial even within Israel. Walt Disney Co. said it would donate $1 million to Magen David Adom and another $1 million to other nonprofit organizations in the region, “particularly those with a focus on providing aid to children.” IBM CEO Arvind Krishna announced on the company’s website on Oct. 11 that among IBM employees in Israel “one IBMer was killed defending their family, and an IBM retiree also lost their life.” He pledged corporate support for employees and their families, and added, “We join the global community in the hope that peace and safety can be quickly restored.” In follow-up statements he said the company would match “employee donations to humanitarian organizations that are supporting relief efforts.” One discordant note has been struck by Starbucks, which has exploited the situation to advance its detestable anti-union campaign by making a big deal over an unquestionably ill-considered post by an outpost of the unionization campaign and painting the union as pro-Hamas.