A balanced voice to boycott?

Here’s one of those evil murdering Zionist academics the UCU want to boycott: Carlo Strenger:

Israelis are united in the conviction that Hamas’s hopes to vanquish Israel must be shattered. Israel must destroy the illusion that it can be wiped off the earth.
There are those who say “Hamas can stop this – all they need to do is stop firing. They are responsible for the deaths of their children.” They feel that Israel cannot be expected to accept this aggression.

Then there are those of us who feel that the price for being a civilised state is that you cannot fire at schools, even if an inhuman enemy fires from within. We feel that the ground incursion should have been avoided because we believe that the inhumanity of your enemy must not dictate your own deeds. No one can help but be horrified by the pictures of killed, maimed and terrified Palestinian children. And even though we despise an enemy that is not bound by any rules of recognisable civilisation, we must not let them dictate the terms of engagement.
I will never stop criticising Israeli policies that I take to be wrong-headed, short-sighted or immoral. But I have no sympathy for the critics of Israel who refuse to see that there are ideologies who put destruction above human life and wellbeing. Hamas has changed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from something that can be solved, to a clash defined by the principle that only one side can survive – critics cannot expect Israel to accept this simply because it is the stronger side.

Carlo Stenger does not fit into Keith Hammond’s view of view of Israeli academics:

Where are all these right thinking Israeli academics? I know … they are in the army as reservists doing God knows what because there are no international observers or members of the free international press in Gaza to watch what they are doing …
There is no holding back Israel. It will only be in a complete rejection of their whole Zionist state in a boycott – that is argued right across the trade union movement – that there will be real peace.

It doesn’t fit in for two reasons. One, he has moral concerns about his government’s actions.

Secondly, he doesn’t define the destruction of his state and those within it as “real peace”.