There have been a number of thoughtful contributions on the academic boycott issue recently drawing attention to issues of equity, practicalities of a boycott, its potentially counterproductive consequences and its potential effectiveness.
The article by David Newman however seems highly problematic. While enhancing mutual understanding is commendable, Newman appears to assume that the promotion of contact leads to greater understanding and ultimately might bring about conflict resolution. As others have noted, the ineqaulities in terms of power, military strength etc. in this conflict suggest this is a somewhat naive assumption. It might also be argued that opposing sides in political-territorial conflicts understand each other only too well and recognise that that the marginalisation (politically, culturally, materially) of one grouping is a consequence of deliberate policies, not merely an accident of the other side's ignorance.
Newman also generously suggests that "not everyone associated with the pro-boycott campaign was anti-semitic". This could be interpreted as a dangerous slur implying that many of them are. Newman proceeds to explicitly link the boycott debate with anti-semitism. While there is a clear need to be mindful of the implications of actions and utterances giving succour to racists, there is also a need to ensure that political debate is not stifled.
On a more general point it seems logical that an academic boycott might have limited, if any impact. However, as others have noted, it might be seen as simply one element in a broader campaign opposing the policies of the Israeli state.
Dave