The Economy of a Genocide 

By Melisa Kisacik, Laura Minnetian, Sofia Diaz and Aanvi Singh

On the 12 November, the Middle East and North African Student Initiative (MENA) held its biggest conference of this year, The Economy of a Genocide. Several scholars, activists, and practitioners were invited to discuss the economic motives behind the occupation and genocide in Gaza. The conference was divided into three parts, each focusing on a different angle. The Graduate Press attended all three sessions to provide our readers with an overview of the key points. 

Panel 1: Structures of Domination 

The first panel focused on the structures of Israeli domination, their history, and how these structures have shifted to lead to the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The speakers brought distinct expertise: Raja Khalidi, economist and Director at the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS); Dr. Shir Hever, political economist and manager at the Alliance for Justice between Israelis and Palestinians; and Dr. Julie Billaud, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the Geneva Graduate Institute.  

​​It was during this discussion that a recurring idea emerged, one that captured the logic underlying all three interventions: Genocide is a structure, not an event.

Raja Khalidi opened by arguing that genocide must be understood as an ongoing process rather than a single moment, tracing it back to the long-standing military and economic oppression of Palestinians. He explained that the secular nature of the Israeli state and the expansion of the Zionist project had led to a dual economy, dividing it into a Jewish and an Arab sector and creating economic dependencies of Palestinians on Israel. He emphasized that, over the last two years, Israel’s economy has shifted entirely towards occupation, ethnic cleansing and the denial of Palestinian rights. Khalidi concluded by arguing that Israel’s actions can no longer be understood through political economy alone; for Palestinians, what remains is the struggle to resist and to survive.

Dr. Shir Hever added to this perspective by explaining the shift in Israeli politics from exploitation to elimination, reflected in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through pressure to emigrate from Israel. Although these practices were illegal, he argues that they did not cross the line of genocide yet; however, this changed during the last two years. This change, mainly supported by non-Israeli and new AI technologies developed by American tech companies, has turned the war into a lucrative market for them. This is evident in the growing backlog of orders faced by American weapons manufacturers. Yet, Hever argues, the driving force is no longer economic, Israel is not the one profiting. He argued that the war is now driven by a theological logic centered on “revenge.” Israel no longer focuses on strategic or economic gain, and the war has become a lose-lose situation in which the objective is simply that Palestinians lose, no matter the cost.

Professor Julie Billaud, the last speaker on the panel, offered a more theoretical perspective focused on the humanitarian framework. She argued that the state of emergency in Gaza is no longer an exception but has become the norm. By maintaining this permanent catastrophe, she argued, Israel ensures that Palestinian rights are consistently sidelined.In this process, the protective and catastrophic functions of the states involved become intertwined, allowing them to focus on short-term humanitarian relevance rather than long-term solutions. This systematic deprivation of Palestinian rights, she concluded, has laid the groundwork for genocide. 

In the end, the panel drew a clear picture. What is happening in Gaza did not appear overnight. It grows out of structures that have been in place for decades. Although each speaker approached the subject in a different way, they all returned to the same idea: this is not a sudden burst of violence, but a system that has been built and maintained over time. Possibilities to encounter this system of violence are talked about in the second panel. 

Panel 2: Economies of Resilience and Resistance

The second panel explored how Palestinians confront domination through economic resistance, grassroots organizing, and global solidarity. The speakers each brought a unique perspective: Alaa Tartir, Academic coordinator for Middle East North Africa Region and a researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Sami Huraini, Co-Founder of Youth of Sumud and a Board Member at Popular Struggle Coordination Committee, Naser Abdelkarim, Director General of Center for Private Sector Development, Palestine, Nijmeh Ali, Global Academy Fellow with the Middle East Studies Association and a Policy Member of  Al-Shabaka – The Palestinian Policy Network, Fiona Ben Chekroun, Europe co-coordinator at the Palestinian BDS National Committee.

Opening the discussion via video message, Alaa Tartir argued that the Oslo framework and wider settler-colonial structures have criminalized Palestinian agency, forcing communities to transform everyday practices into forms of “contentious economics.” These settler-colonialism structures as part of an ugly square that includes apartheid and genocide. He described the resistance economy grounded in Sumud, dignity, and the right to return (Art.13) as a multidimensional strategy for liberation rather than conventional development. Building on this, Naser Abdelkarim emphasized that the Palestinian economy cannot be understood through traditional models: with Israel withholding revenues, public workers unpaid, and private actors forced to operate under occupation, Palestinians have developed improvised mechanisms of survival that expose the deep inequalities and structural captivity shaping economic life.

Parallel to these internal dynamics, Fiona Ben Chekroun situated Palestine within global systems of complicity, highlighting the expansion of the BDS movement across academic, cultural, economic and political spheres, marking a global call for action and transformative change across university campuses, global arts institutions, consumer markets, and legislative debates worldwide. She argued that apartheid and genocide are upheld by international networks of power, and that strategic boycotts whether through university divestments, cultural refusals, or state-level trade suspensions seek to dismantle this architecture. Her intervention echoed a central theme of the panel: resisting the colonization of both land and consciousness, and rejecting despair as a political position.

Grounding the discussion in the current reality, Nijmeh Ali and activist Sami Huraini described the everyday infrastructures of Sumud within Palestine. From seed banks, women’s cooperatives and fair-trade initiatives to youth protection patrols in villages facing settler attacks, these efforts create “cracks” in the system spaces for life, work and community to persist despite home demolitions, surveillance and targeted economic destruction. Their accounts underscored that Sumud is not romantic heroism but a necessity for survival. Huraini, joining online during an ongoing Israeli military raid in Masafer Yatta, spoke about the demolition of three homes belonging to Palestinians in his village. These raids have intensified across the West Bank and Jordan Valley, resulting in the loss of homes and sources of income for Palestinian families. Despite this, the two speakers showed that Palestinian resistance operates across scales from global boycott campaigns to local acts of rebuilding and that the struggle for self-determination is sustained through both organized strategy and the daily insistence on remaining.

Panel 3: Profiting from Digital Oppression

The third panel consisted of Ibtihal Aboussad, a former Microsoft engineer and currently an organiser of the No Azure for Apartheid movement, and Adi Mansour, a PhD researcher at European University Institute and an attorney at Adalah Legal Centre. It was moderated by Bilal Salaymeh, a postdoctoral researcher here at IHEID, at the Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding. 

The discussion began with a video message from Yanis Varoufakis, a Greek economist and politician. He focused on the economic forces underpinning the genocide of the Palestinian people. This was his speech from his testimony in front of the Jury of Conscience in the context of the Gaza Tribunal. He talked about the underlying political economy of occupation and, in particular, the manner in which thousands of Israeli companies are intertwined with US, European and Korean mega-corporations – that include the world’s most financially strong conglomerates – comprising an international network that had kicked into overdrive after October 2023. He went into depth on the subject of cloud capital: the new form of capital that is involved in the cause of genocide, and has the ability to manipulate humans, monitor their behaviour and select from them, a “good” target. 

Ibtihal Aboussad built on this discussion of technical infrastructure by taking the audience through the pillars of digital oppression. Information control through social media is a strong weapon to wield. She emphasised on the hypocrisy of Meta’s actions – their very strict [and biased] policy of flagging hate speech in Arabic, while the same speech in Hebrew is not considered to be an actionable offence. She also elaborated on the concept of cloud capital, and how this capital is actively exploited. This is in the form of biometric data, that is stored in the global network of data centres. Project Nimbus, Lavender AI, and Red Wolf are examples of technologies in use, with absolute impunity. “Palestine has become an R&D [research and development] lab for this campaign of master surveillance”, where Ibtihal pointed out that the prime motive behind it is profit over ethics. 

Adi Mansour proceeded to unfold how social media platforms have played a role in controlling knowledge production, by silencing people or spinning a certain kind of narrative. He explained how these systems of control translate into systemic apartheid and biases: through having the power to decide and regulate what kind of knowledge is produced, and more importantly, by whom. Over the course of time, this can be seen through the aggressive delegitimisation of the ability to talk about Palestinian identity and their removal from the online sphere. This shows how social media platforms, like META, work as gatekeepers of knowledge and regulate which narratives around the genocide are visible. He emphasizes that what is happening online is not disconnected from real life, and therefore influences the reality of many people. Later in the discussion, Adi and Ibtihal both advocated for alternative and safer social media platforms to reclaim control over the production of knowledge.

The Conference ended on a hopeful note. People had turned up in large numbers to listen to, and support the speakers. The diversity of the audience, from professionals in the field to scholars and students, added to the sense of urgency and importance of the discussion. The dystopian nature of society is terrifying, but the knowledge that people are striving to change that, sends out a message that, maybe, ever so slightly, there is more good than evil. This stands out with the MENA Initiative Board and their zeal to keep us talking about, and working towards issues that need our collective solidarity.