Only one anti-boycott argument?

Stanley Fish appears to be of the view that there is one argument that is sufficient unto itself and all things in opposing the move to boycott Israeli academics. This is that it is 'antithetical to the academic enterprise'. OK, but my, does he pile misunderstanding upon confusion in the way he tries to see off other anti-boycott arguments? Thus, here he is on arguments he deems counterproductive:

In the counterproductive category is the charge that the boycotters are anti-Semitic. Rather than shaming or cowing those it is aimed at, this accusation only produces indignation...

But opponents of the boycott do not, or at least do not all, say that the would-be boycotters are anti-Semitic (even though some of them are); we say that, pending the production of a good reason why Israeli academics and they alone should be boycotted, the boycott is an anti-Semitic policy. As for indignation, imagine how quickly you could run short of arguments if all that was needed to disable them was the indignation of your opponents. Fish continues:

The charge of anti-Semitism also provokes two responses of principle: first that one can and should distinguish between opposition to the policy of a state and prejudice against that state's racial majority (Are you telling me I can't criticize Israel without being a racist?); and second, that the invocation of anti-Semitism has the effect, if not the intention, of chilling speech (a First Amendment no-no). How can one "vigorously advocate the idea that the Israeli occupation is brutal and wrong... if the voicing of these views calls down the charge of ant-Semitism?" (Judith Butler, "It's Not Anti-Semitism" London Review of Books, August 21, 2003).

The fact that these things are produced as counter-arguments doesn't mean they're any good. Yes one should distinguish between opposition to the policy of a state and prejudice against that state's majority; no, we're not telling anyone they can't criticize Israel without being a racist; and yes, you can vigorously advocate the idea that the Israeli occupation is brutal and wrong. Plenty opponents of the boycott have been opposed to the occupation from its inception. None of these points bears on the character, justified or unjustified, anti-Semitic or not, of an academic boycott policy targeted uniquely against Israelis. So far as 'chilling speech' is concerned, does this apply to every worry when articulated about racist policies or practices, or only to that worry when it is attached to Israel and the boycotting of it? There's more:

Boycott opponents do no better when the focus is narrowed to just Israel and Palestine and they argue... that it is incorrect and a suspicious distortion to regard Israel "as the pure aggressor" and the Palestinians "as pure victims"...

But again, the degree of culpability assigned to the two states (and of course that is a matter that will never be settled) should not yield a formula for treating its academics differently (you guys can come to our conference, but you lot can't).

Can Fish have overlooked the fact that political disagreement over major issues is rarely a matter of just one type of consideration? People often make up their minds by weighing a number of arguments. So: academics should not be penalized by other academics on account of the policies of the government of the former bunch of academics. Indeed. But it is still relevant to examine other pro-boycott arguments in order to assess what strength they have, if any. What if someone doesn't agree with Fish's would-be killer argument?