Since there seems to be strong support here for the idea of keeping
politics out of science (e.g. the Doonesbury cartoon), then perhaps we
need to be as carefully about keeping science out of politics. To me
this is the central question in this debate.
In the linked article, it states (referring to the author of the
disputed article):
"He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to
criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the
Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in
'concentration' camps."
If the paper had been written in a politically neutral voice, I doubt
there would be any uproar. If he simple said that the two ethnic groups
shared strong genetic ties, then there would be no political or
religious sensibilities being stepped on. But by choosing to use
politically charged wording in his paper, the author DID step at least a
bit over the line of acceptable science writing.
I fault the editors who accepted the article in the first place. They
should have insisted that political commentary be removed before the
article as accepted for publication in a scientific journal.