Yes, it's helpful to be reminded of the history that some Israelis are thinking of when confronted with the BDS movement.

At the same time we have to go back to the fact that boycotts are basically the power of the purse. That power includes people being able to exercise hideous prejudices in what they chose to buy. I can't think of any reasonable way one can regulate that. We do it as regards human labor with the EEOC, but I don't see how it could be reasonably done to protect goods/merchandise/stock, as you can't force people to buy things judging them fairly and without prejudice. (If you could, there would be a lot less designer label merchandise sold, for one thing.)

What can one confronted with an irrational boycott do? Public relations, that's what it's for. (Actually, it's not uncommon for larger American corporations to go deep here, they have separate departments under P.R. that work in community relations, going beyond pushing their product, supporting good works in their community, selling the "don't be evil" thing as if were another label on their product.)

Rereading his column after thinking about that, I find fault with his historical continuum, where he sees the progression happening, he is having some irrationality himself. It is not writ in stone that boycotting of goods produced by a certain ethnic group due to irrational prejudices (i.e., don't buy your food or fabric from Jews or Kurds or Kafirs) will always be followed by loss of civil rights, purges, pogroms and gas chambers. It can also go in another direction if the makers know what needs to be done to win enough buyers back, leaving the irrational boycotters a small minority. Actually, I can also imagine examples where if powers-that-be stepped in and gave preferential protected status to some goods over others, there is blowback that can be just as damaging to the cause.

To sum it up, I agree with you but not with him:

Arens says things I wouldn't say, but I think it's fair to ask supporters of BDS to explain what it is they are looking to accomplish.

And doing that would be rightly part of a P.R. war. That's just the way things are. If you're not allowed to fight back, not allowed to try to win back customers, that's when it steps over the line.

Peter,

There is certainly de facto discrimination against Israeli Arabs, of course.  But Arab citizens have the same legal rights as Jewish Israelis.  The discrimination as a matter of law is found in the territories.  I'd be surprised if anyone outside of Israel would be promoting BDS on the basis of de facto discrimination, particularly in places like the US and Europe.  

The whole purpose of voting for partition was to allow Jews from around the world to return home, and home they came and not just from the scattered remnants from Europe.  I would recommend that you read Benny Morris' 1948 and the book I  referred to a couple of weeks ago, Shavit's My Promised Land.  Both painful for Zionists like yours truly, but real Peter.  It was war.

A special UN appointed committee studied the issue with intensitiy, recommended partition, had it approved by the General Assembly, was agreed to by the Palestinian Jews, and was uniformly rejected by the Arab world.  On the date that the British Mandate expired, the fledgling Jewish State was attacked by the armies of four nations.  Horrible things happened -- there were massacres, there were expulsions, and there are things that happened that Shavit refers to as "Zionism's Black Box," and in particular for what happened in the Arab city of Lydda on the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.      

Still, some folks may wish to support BDS on the basis of what happened in 1948, but to me it takes quite a bit of intellectual pretzel twisting to justify that position.   

I wish the Israeli people had listened to Ben Gurion and others and had found a way to give back occupied territory.  And, yes, then who knows what would have happened?  Unlike Arens, I would like to believe that there are millions upon millions of folks who would recognize the right of Israelis to live in peace, but simply cannot condone the continued occupation of the Palestinian People.  

Ponder this.  When Israel declared its independence in 1948 it was only 58 years from when Native Americans suffered their final humiliation at Wounded Knee.  It is now going on 66 years since Israel's independence.  I have nothing but daylight between anyone who would boycott Israel because of what happened in a war it didn't start 66 years ago.

P.S. Get your ass over to Israel and see things for yourself!  Just don't take one of them tours.   Talk to me. :)

P.P.S. I refer to Wounded Knee as the final humiliation for Native Americans.  That relates to war.  The humiliation of Native Americans continues and is a national disgrace.   Forgive me for suggesting otherwise.