The modern global order continues to operate within a structure shaped by imperial power—one that resists true sovereignty for nations outside its sphere of control. A sovereign country governs its own resources, knowledge, and future. That independence limits external influence. For that reason, it is often not tolerated.
Instead, regimes that comply with dominant Western interests are supported, while those that resist are sanctioned, destabilised, or attacked. This produces a predictable outcome: governments that serve external power rather than their own people, and populations that eventually resist. When they do, they are labelled as extremists, terrorists, or threats to civilisation. Meanwhile, those exercising power present themselves as moral, lawful, and civilised.
This pattern is not new. What is new is how visible it has become.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Gaza. What is unfolding has been described by many scholars and observers as a genocide. Beyond the immense human toll, it is also the systematic destruction of a society’s ability to exist, think, and rebuild. Universities have been destroyed. Students, professors, and researchers have been killed. According to Scholars at Risk (an international network of academic institutions), higher education institutions across Gaza have been rendered inoperable, and large parts of its intellectual community have been wiped out.
This is not collateral damage. It is the destruction of knowledge itself.
And yet, the global scientific community has not responded with the urgency or consistency it claims to uphold. Institutions that present themselves as defenders of truth and humanity have remained selective in their outrage. Leading journals such as Nature and Science have historically spoken out when scientists in certain parts of the world are harmed. But when entire universities are erased in Gaza, when an academic community is systematically dismantled, the response is muted.
This is not neutrality. It is selectivity.
Iran offers another clear example. For years, Iranian scientists have been assassinated in targeted operations widely attributed to Israel, aimed at weakening the country’s scientific development. At the same time, extensive sanctions have restricted Iran’s access to global research networks, materials, and collaboration, undermining its scientific progress. These are direct attacks on knowledge and those who produce it.
Yet again, the global response has been limited.
The conclusion is unavoidable: science is not operating as a universal, neutral system. It is shaped by power.
But confronting this reality requires consistency. It is not enough to condemn the destruction of science in some contexts while ignoring how science itself can be used as a tool of violence in others.
There is credible and ongoing debate about the role of certain academic institutions in Israel in supporting military and defence systems. When universities and scientists contribute to the development of technologies used in operations that kill civilians, they are not neutral actors. They are participants.
And participation carries responsibility.
Accountability is not optional. And it is not abstract.
If science is used to develop weapons, surveillance systems, and strategies that kill civilians, then those who produce that knowledge are responsible. They cannot hide behind claims of neutrality. There is no neutrality in systems that dehumanise and destroy.
This requires action.
Institutions that are complicit must be boycotted, sanctioned, and excluded from international scientific collaborations. This is not symbolic—it is necessary. It is the minimum ethical response when science is used as a tool of violence.
This applies directly to Israeli academic and research institutions that are linked to military systems and operations used against Palestinians. These institutions must be boycotted. They must be excluded from international collaborations, funding, and partnerships. They must not be treated as normal participants in a global scientific community while contributing to systems that kill civilians.
At the same time, the principle must remain consistent: the killing of scientists and the destruction of universities anywhere—whether in Gaza, Iran, or elsewhere—is wrong and must be condemned. But refusing to hold complicit institutions accountable is equally wrong.
You cannot claim to defend science while protecting institutions that weaponise it.
Boycott, sanctions, and exclusion are not attacks on science. They are the only meaningful tools of accountability when power refuses to regulate itself. Without them, there are no consequences. And without consequences, there is no ethics—only power
The scientific community must choose.
Stand for human dignity and justice—or remain complicit in systems that destroy both.
Silence is not neutrality.It is complicity.
