I'd guess that they probably do see the consequences, but we don't. The one thing that a company in this situation really doesn't want is more attention. So they make the problem go away as quietly as possible, and if they're going to fire anybody for it it happens months later.
That's the double standard I was referring to—they didn't fire the plaintiff in this case quietly, months later, and he was only accused (incorrectly) of damaging the company. They fired him immediately, visibly, punitively. But they'll possibly lay off the actual cause of their problems quietly, later.
I suppose that, as you say, they are worried about adding fuel to the fire by firing the parties who were actually at fault. Personally, I doubt it would. What's most likely to happen is that they get it wrong in both cases: first, damaging their reputation by firing someone who didn't do anything, and then later not firing someone who did damage their reputation, thus damaging their public reputation (perhaps) and hurting their internal reputation and morale (one would assume).
It will. In this example, publicly firing the guy who ordered Sleiman's termination can be construed as "American firing Hamas Sympathizer fired and sympathizer reinstated"
A culture war is a two way street. No reason to further fan the flames.
