For a scholar employed at a German university and situated at the intersection of Middle East politics and International Relations, the Hamas attacks of October 2023 and the subsequent destruction of Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) exposed what can only be described as a scientific professionalism fallacy. By this fallacy, I refer to the purported scholarly imperative that we as academics should restrict our analysis of the Israel–Palestine conflict, and the associated dynamics of violence, war, suffering, and German policy toward Israel, to scientific activities proper. This professionalism imperative, however, became untenable in light of the collective academic silence on Gaza. It stifled the space within the scientific community that is necessary to present, share, and discuss research findings. However, such a space is a precondition for any strictly scientific work to be conceivable at all. This is particularly necessary when the autonomy of a scientific discipline is undermined by political pressure and surveillance, as is the case in Israel–Palestine-related scholarship.
Roy Karadag (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: