Philosophers and political theorists endorse BDS in response to slaughter in Gaza

Here.  (Thanks to Lorna Finlayson for the pointer.)

My own view is that it is not reasonable, or desirable, to expect Israeli academic institutions to adopt positions on questions of national policy (the boycott calls for a "refusal to associate with Israeli academic institutions that have not explicitly condemned the occupation"); the same is true in the U.S.  What is known as "the Kalven Report" from 1967, after its lead author, Harry Kalven, a prominent First Amendment scholar at Chicago, got it right:

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member   or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics;   it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase,   a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university   must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain   an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university,   if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable   to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It   is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching   and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive   purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues   of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness.   There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting   that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all   of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action,   therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree   with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority   vote to reach positions on public issues.

Unfortunately, then, this call for boycott seems to me misconceived, at least as regards academic institutions.  The case for an economic boycott of Israel for its crimes is as strong as it has ever been, and only an economic boycott endorsed by significant trading partners will have the desired effects.