Roughly speaking, the Palestinian-Arab side stumbled badly in 1948, by attacking the Palestinian-Jewish community to forestall Israel's birth pursuant to the UN's partition resolution, and with the Second Intifada beginning in late 2000, and again with the Hamas takeover and attacks from Gaza in 2006-7 and beyond. Israel took advantage of its victories over most Arab forces in 1948 to expel about three-quarters of the Arabs of what became Israel, and likewise after winning the Six Day War in 1967 to increasingly settle Jews in the conquered territories, displacing and oppressing Palestinians in the process. One can cite a lot more detail (including the Palestinian militants' frequent modus operandi of indiscriminately attacking all Israelis, not just soldiers), but my point is that there's plenty of blame to go around, and a BDS campaign that targets only Israel ignores this truth.
Still, if I felt that BDS would be an effective "tool," as Peratis regards it, in forging a reasonable two-state resolution of the conflict, I might join her. As you may know, Partners for Progressive Israel endorsed a "Zionist BDS," only targeting West Bank settlement products, even before Peter Beinart coined this term. As a "sad Zionist" (a Peratis term, meaning frustrated or disappointed liberal supporter of Israel), I sympathize with her intent and with the Beinart-Partners narrowly targeted strategy. But I see boycotts as more symbolic than anything else. The Beinart-Partners anti-settlements approach has the virtue of not targeting Israel as such, and thus avoiding the racialist obscenity of boycotting Israeli universities, cultural institutions and performing artists. I suspect that Peratis feels the same way, but this would contradict her new position.