Sir

We find it curious that your News story “Palestinian unease sparks fresh calls for Israeli boycott” (Nature 434, 813; 200510.1038/434813a) portrays scientific collaboration between Palestinian and Israeli academic institutions as a “beacon of hope” at a time when Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is ongoing and, in fact, intensifying.

Plain logic would lead us to think that liberation is required first, and then perhaps collaboration, with justice having already been achieved. To suggest that collaboration despite occupation is a sign of hope defies any understanding of conflict, oppression and the struggle for freedom, justice and genuine peace.

In our view, boycott constitutes one of the very few possibilities for Palestinian non-violent resistance to occupation. Boycott as an instrument of civil resistance did not originate in Palestine. It has been effectively used elsewhere, notably in South Africa, and has earned much support from various groups worldwide.

In the case of Palestine–Israel, a moral, if not active, support of the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions is the least that one expects from conscientious academics, scientists and intellectuals worldwide. Would Nature have described the collaboration of blacks and other liberationists in South Africa with the apartheid government and its institutions as a “beacon of hope”?