1. You should be able to judge this from a content-neutral point of view. In other words, he was screwed from contractual and 1st amendment perspectives. You should be able to say that whether you are pro-Palestinian or Zionist in your perspective. People defending him because they agree with his perspective, or attacking him because they don't, are putting forward irrelevant information. In other words, you should put it in the form of a hypothetical: a faculty member was hired, quit his previous job, and moved, and then had the appointment canceled because of tweets about X (where X is an unknown variable.) What do you think? Your opinion should not change after you discover the content of the tweets.
2. Why was he hired by a dept. of American Indian Studies when almost all his publications are on Israel / Palestine? I was told by someone in the American Indian field that two factors enter. In the first place, American Indian activists identify strongly with the Palestinian cause, because colonialism. Secondly, there are few Indians with PhDs. The field itself just doesn't have a lot of depth (quantitatively). That explains the way that the Ward Churchills can rise to prominence. Again, I think this shouldn't matter for discussing whether he should be lured with the promise of a job and then have that taken away.
3. Since the trustees meet after classes begin, nobody is technically hired until after they begin teaching. Hence the argument that he wasn't fired because he was never hired, or that the trustees are more than a rubber-stamp, is utter bullshit. No contract from UIUC is worth the paper it's written on anymore.
4. Why not give him Marrouchi's job? I think it should be opening soon. (Sorry, I don't mean to say that all Arabs are interchangeable!)
5. Salaita is anti-semitic (in my view). He tweeted that Zionism is (partly) responsible for people saying anti-semitic things, that it made Anti-Semitism "honorable." I know other people interpret those tweets differently, but I simply don't agree. (Wishing more kidnappings of Israelis was also ill-advised.) I think the point is that the sole responsibility for anti-Semitism rests with anti-Semites. It would be as stupid to say "radical feminists, making 'misogyny' honorable since 1968." No, misogyny is not the fault of feminists, even ones with whom one doesn't agree. The "correct" interpretation of his tweets is that he is pointing out that Israeli propaganda equates all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and thus robs the accusation of all force. The problem is that this interpretation is not obvious to all, needs to be pointed out, and still misses the fundamental point: anti-Semitism does exist and is harmful. The Spanish writer Antonio Gala, for example, published an article recently in which he said, basically, "those Jews again, they are good with money but is it a coincidence that nobody likes them, that they keep getting thrown out of everywhere? It's a wonder they are ever invited back." I kid thee not. So this is simply an anti-Semitic guy who would have that prejudice anyway, irrespective of Gaza. So some criticism really is motivated by anti-Semitism. Imagine that.
6. So what prejudices are legitimate? Is it really possible to have a content-neutral standard. Could it actually be shown that one's position on Palestine / Israel predicted, exactly, one's position on the question of Salaita? [I myself am highly critical of Israel, think Hamas is an absolute disaster, and that Salaita is a foolish anti-semitic blowhard who should sue the pants of UIUC.] I will cheer for him to win. I wouldn't cheer so hard if he were a Klansman or a misogynist.
7. No, I won't boycott the institution. I won't condemn your decision to boycott it, but I wouldn't refuse to have anything to do with it myself. I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe I wouldn't want to penalize my colleagues who probably disagree with the administration by refusing to talk in their department.
8. But really, all you have to know is #1.