Moldovans vote in the second round of a crucial presidential election on Sunday, which could determine whether the post-Soviet country stays its course toward Europe or lurches back into the Kremlin’s orbit.

Maia Sandu, the pro-Western president, is seeking reelection after guiding Moldova closer to the European Union than ever before while Russia’s war in Ukraine raged near its eastern border.

Sandu secured 42% of the first-round vote, held on the same day as a referendum on EU membership that passed by the thinnest of margins. Both votes were marred by a vast Kremlin-linked vote-buying scheme, which Sandu said amounted to an “unprecedented assault” on Moldova’s democracy.

She faces Alexandr Stoianoglo, a former prosecutor general running for the pro-Russian Party of Socialists. If other Kremlin-friendly parties swing their support behind him, the second round will be extremely close.

In last Sunday’s presidential debate, Sandu – a Harvard-educated former World Bank official who has cut ties with Moscow – called Stoianoglo a “Trojan Horse” seeking to infiltrate the country’s capital, Chisinau, on the Kremlin’s behalf.

Before last month’s votes, Ilan Shor, a Russian-backed oligarch, offered to pay people for working to elect a Russia-friendly candidate and stop the referendum passing. Sandu said the scheme sought to pay off some 300,000 voters – about 10% of the population.

Despite polling at just over 10% before the election, Stoianoglo won more than 26% of first-round votes. Both the Kremlin and Shor have denied interference, but Moldovan officials have warned the second vote could also be targeted by similar schemes.

Apart from vote-buying, analysts say the first round revealed genuine opposition to Sandu, whose first term has been wracked by successive crises.

Although Sandu has weaned Moldova off Russian gas, it came at a heavy cost to one of Europe’s poorest countries. Inflation briefly rocketed to more than 30%, causing poverty to tick up.

Some have also criticized Sandu’s “cynical” decision to hold the EU referendum on the same day as the presidential election, positioning herself as the only politician capable of bringing Moldova into Europe.

“The plan of the government was that the issue of European integration will drag up the support for Maia Sandu. It turned out the other way round: The discontent with Maia Sandu dragged down the support for European integration,” said Samurokov.

Stoianoglo is attempting to capitalize on discontent with Sandu by keeping one foot in both camps. He has called for a “reset” of relations with Moscow and said he would be willing to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin, while maintaining he is committed to joining the EU.

As a result, his platform is a mix of contradictory policies, said Samurokov: “You either support European integration, or you want to promote cooperation with Moscow. It’s very difficult to reconcile.”

Still, Moldovan officials are braced for a second round of voting marred by pro-Russian meddling. A defeat for Sandu would land a crushing blow for Moldova’s hopes of a European future.

A Russia-friendly government could also spell further trouble in Transnistria, a separatist sliver of territory where some 1,500 Russian troops are stationed. Officials have long questioned whether Transnistria could eventually become a second front in the war in Ukraine.

Moldova’s election will come a week after Georgia’s, another formerly Communist state where Russia is seeking to keep its influence alive.

After the increasingly autocratic Georgian Dream party claimed victory, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed Russia has “won” in Georgia and is on its way to doing the same in Moldova. Sunday’s vote will determine whether he is right.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised a “teeth-breaking” response to Israel and the United States after Israel targeted Iranian military sites in retaliatory strikes late last month.

“The enemies, both the US and the Zionist regime (Israel), should know that they will definitely receive a teeth-breaking response for what they are doing against Iran and the resistance front,” said Khamenei, referring to Iran-allied militant groups including Hamas and Hezbollah.

He was speaking during a meeting with students on Saturday, ahead of the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, Iran’s state-run Press TV reported.

“We are certainly doing everything necessary to prepare the Iranian nation to stand against arrogance, whether in terms of military readiness, armaments, or political actions, and thank God, our officials are currently engaged in this,” he added.

Iran and Israel have long been enemies, a rivalry that deepened following Hamas’ attacks of October 7 last year and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Israel has been battling Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and overnight at least 19 people were injured in the central Israeli city of Tira after projectiles were launched over the border.

Khamenei’s remarks come a week after Israel’s latest round of strikes on Iran in response to the Islamic Republic’s October 1 missile attack on the Jewish state, which itself was a response to the Israeli killing of leaders from Hamas and Hezbollah.

For the first time, Israeli officials admitted hitting targets on Iranian soil in a significant escalation of tensions, although Israel stopped short of hitting Iranian energy or nuclear facilities.

Khamenei’s remarks on Saturday signal a departure from Iran’s initial attempts to downplay the severity of the strikes carried out by Israel on October 25.

Following the strikes, Khamenei took a more measured tone, saying the attacks should “neither be exaggerated nor downplayed.”

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre on Wednesday said Iran should not respond to Israel’s strikes on its territory, adding that “if Iran does choose to respond, however, the US will be standing by to assist Israel in its defense.”

Also this week, Iran said it could increase the range of its missiles, according to a report in state-run media. “If the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an existential threat, we will inevitably change the policy of our military doctrine,” the head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Kamal Kharrazi, told Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen TV on Friday, per Press TV.

He also said Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons but remains curbed by a mandate by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei against weapons of mass destruction, Press TV reported.

A 5.48 metre (18 ft) Australian crocodile that held the world record as the largest crocodile in captivity has died, a wildlife sanctuary said on Saturday. He was thought to be more than 110 years old.

Cassius, weighing in at more than one ton, had been in declining health since October 15, Marineland Melanesia Crocodile Habitat said on Facebook.

“He was very old and believed to be living beyond the years of a wild Croc,” according to a post by the organisation, based on Green Island near the Queensland tourist town of Cairns.

“Cassius will be deeply missed, but our love and memories of him will remain in our hearts forever.”

The group’s website said he had lived at the sanctuary since 1987 after being transported from the neighbouring Northern Territory, where crocodiles are a key part of the region’s tourist industry.

Cassius, a saltwater crocodile, held the Guinness World Records title as the world’s largest crocodile in captivity.

He took the title after the 2013 death of Philippines crocodile Lolong, who measured 6.17 m (20 ft 3 in) long, according to Guinness.

Twenty-nine children could be facing the death penalty in Nigeria after they were arraigned Friday for participating in a protest against the country’s record cost-of-living crisis. Four of them collapsed in court due to exhaustion before they could enter a plea.

A total of 76 protesters were charged with 10 felony counts, including treason, destruction of property, public disturbance and mutiny, according to the charge sheet seen by The Associated Press.

According to the charge sheet, the minors ranged in age from 14 to 17 years old.

Frustration over the cost-of-living crisis has led to several mass protests in recent months. In August, at least 20 people were shot dead and hundreds more were arrested at a protest demanding better opportunities and jobs for young people.

The death sentence was introduced in the 1970s in Nigeria, but there have been no executions in the country since 2016.

Akintayo Balogun, a private lawyer based in Abuja, said the Child Rights Act does not allow any child to be subject to criminal proceedings and sentenced to death.

“So taking minors before a federal high court is wrong, ab initio, except if the government is able to prove that the boys are all above 19 years,” Balogun said.

The court eventually granted 10 million naira ($5,900) bail to each the defendants and imposed stringent conditions they are yet to meet, Marshal Abubakar, counsel to some of the boys, said.

“A country that has a duty to educate its children will decide to punish those children. These children have been in detention for 90 days without food,” Abubakar said.

Yemi Adamolekun, executive director of Enough is Enough, a civil society organization promoting good governance in Nigeria, said authorities have no business prosecuting children.

“The chief justice of Nigeria should be ashamed, she is a woman and a mother,” Adamolekun said.

Despite being one of the top crude oil producers in Africa, Nigeria remains one of the world’s poorest countries. Chronic corruption means the lifestyle of its public officials rarely mirrors that of the general population. Medical professionals often strike to protest meager wages.

The country’s politicians and lawmakers, often accused of corruption, are some of the best-paid in Africa. Even the president’s wife — her office nowhere in the constitution — is entitled to SUVs and other luxuries funded by taxpayers.

Nigeria’s population of over 210 million people — the continent’s largest — is also among the hungriest in the world and its government has struggled to create jobs. The inflation rate is also at 28-year high and the local naira currency at record lows against the dollar.

On Thursday, Nigeria was classified as a “hotspot of very high concern,” in a report from United Nations’ food agencies, as large numbers of people are facing or are projected to face critical levels of acute food insecurity in the West African country.

The Israeli military says it has captured a senior Hezbollah operative in an amphibious special forces raid in northern Lebanon.

The official added that the seized operative was now being investigated by Unit 504 – an intelligence unit of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) reported Saturday that eyewitnesses had seen “an unidentified military force carrying out a landing operation on ​​the Batroun beach” at dawn the day before.

The troops “moved with all their weapons and equipment to a chalet near the beach, where they kidnapped the citizen Imad Amhaz and took him to the beach, (then) left by speedboats to the open sea,” NNA reported.

The Lebanese government said its security services were investigating “an incident that took place in the Batroun area,” at dawn Friday.

The raid comes a little more than a month after Hezbollah said it had targeted a naval base on Israel’s northern Mediterranean coast that houses an elite Israeli naval commando unit – thought to be a reference to Shayetet 13.

Hezbollah claims that attack took place on September 23. Asked at the time for comment, the IDF said “no injuries were reported” – but it did not confirm that the naval base had been targeted.

Midway through the documentary “No Other Land,” journalist and activist Basel Adra recounts a 2009 visit to his village by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

In a navy suit and crisp tie, surrounded by security detail and photographers, Blair walked through the village for seven minutes, Adra says in a voice-over.

He visits the local school, Adra says. He passes by Adra’s family’s home. He nods along to something someone says off camera, the footage shows. He shakes a hand. He smiles.

Months later, after Blair returns to the UK, Israel cancels the demolition orders held for the school and home in the street he visited, Adra says. In the mere handful of minutes, Blair accomplished what villagers had been trying to do for years.

“This,” Adra says, “is a story about power.”

“No Other Land” tells of the continued demolition of Masafer Yatta, a collection of villages in the Hebron mountains of the West Bank where Adra and his family still live. But as we see the demolition — the local playground torn down, his family moving their beds and other belongings into a cave, his brother shot and killed by soldiers, attacks by Jewish settlers — Adra and the rest of the filmmakers also show us a community trying to survive.

Adra’s filming begins in 2019 and stretches until 2023, chronicling the Israeli government’s attempt to evict the villagers by force, having claimed the land for a military training facility and firing range in 1981. (During the lengthy legal battle, before the Israeli supreme court ruled in favor of demolishing homes in the villages in 2022, Israeli prosecutors argued that Palestinian residents only began squatting in the area when it was declared a firing range, after previously using the land as seasonal pasture. Residents countered, saying the IDF had blown up Palestinian homes in Masafer Yatta decades earlier, in 1966).

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What motivated you to pick up the camera in the first place? Was making a documentary always the goal?

Basel Adra: No, it wasn’t. It was documenting. To document the things around me was the goal, and it always felt important to catch the incidents that’s happening around us as evidence of the reality of what’s happening. And then, after years, the guys joined, and we decided together that we want to make a movie.

Yuval Abraham: I came here as a journalist, so documenting was part of the job. It’s something that I believe in. I came into journalism out of realizing that there is so much that is not being told in the land that we live in that needs to be told. But for me, the act of documenting, whether it’s by writing or by filming, always has a purpose or an audience in mind, most of the time. Whereas for Basel, it’s also that, but as he said, it’s also the way to survive when you’re being attacked, or when your community is.

You started filming this in 2019 and you wrapped it up before the events of October last year. Do you think the film has changed or taken on new meaning because of what’s happened since then?

Abraham: Of course, the movie meets the audience at the moment where the audience is. Now, Palestine and Israel are on the news 24/7 for the past year. To me, the film is showing the reality on the ground before October, and it’s showing essentially the decades-long occupation of Palestinians. And I think one of the reasons why we made the movie is, for me, is because — October 7 is an atrocity — but the world was not paying attention, almost at all, to the violent life that Palestinians are living under for decades before October.

This adds so much urgency for me to the film right now. It’s clear that, to anybody who watches our film and looks at the reality of the farmers in Masafer Yatta, living under Israeli military control is not something sustainable and it’s not something just. It’s not something that can continue. Me and Basel were born in the ‘90s. If we would have reached a political solution then, imagine how many more people would be alive today? And it’s unfortunate that people are now talking about the need for political change only after, in a way, human beings are paying with their blood.

I know with the recent escalation, you had to cut your time in the US short. How did it feel to go from touring this documentary all over the world, getting awards, etc., to zooming back home to Palestine and Israel?

Adra: It’s different. It’s not easy to go to the festivals and succeed, and journalists talk about it, the audience wants to see it, and it’s been sold out in many festivals. But coming back to the reality here, it’s sad to see that the situation is going, changing to be worse than it was even before.

Abraham: It’s a question that we always ask ourselves: What can we do to cause change? To end the occupation, to reach a political movement? Now, I think after really a year, it’s hard not to talk about Gaza, honestly, because you see every single day, literally, houses filled with families being bombed and little children obliterated or burnt alive. And now in the north of the Gaza Strip, there is an ethnic cleansing. It’s one of the biggest atrocities of our age and time, and the atrocities of October 7 cannot justify what has been going on every single day since.

What kind of footage do people need to see for the United States to change its foreign policy in a way which would be constructive for the people who are living here, in a way which will push us towards some kind of political solution?

Those of us who want to see a future where this oppression ends have to call for a change. And so can our film do that? I don’t think it can do that. It’s very hard to speak about the power now of documentary and footage, when there is so much footage. You can now Google. I mean, just open Twitter and open Facebook, you see so much endless footage of violence and nothing is changing. It’s a complicated position that we are in, so I don’t know what can change.

So, you don’t necessarily feel hope that things can change, because there’s footage everywhere?

Abraham: This is why we made a documentary, because there is a difference between just posting a random instance of violence to watching our film, which tells a very strong human story of a community for four years, trying to survive on their land. We hope that watching a film will have some kind of impact that these videos that we post on social media does not have.

At the end of the day, we’re not powerful people, and if the people who have power are not using their power to change the reality, then things are not going to change. We can make a million documentaries about it, but they’re not going to change their reality.

When was the moment where you decided, ‘I’m done waiting on other journalists; I’m going to tell my own story?’

Adra: Well, this is like back in the beginning, of documenting what’s going on. What I saw, like the missions happening, the attacks are happening here in Masafer Yatta. But it’s not a story, even, it’s a routine in our lives. So there I started using social media, writing articles and filming what is happening.

Abraham: There are times in history when policy becomes invisible to the people because it happens so much. It’s just routine. It’s part of the routine oppression. I think of South Africa, for example. There were times when it was just considered normal, under the apartheid regime, to have certain people who cannot vote for the main government. It was just normal. You didn’t need to report about it. And this is what’s really happening here in Masafer Yatta. Yesterday, houses were demolished. Was it reported anywhere? It’s not going to be reported, because this is the day-to-day life, the routine life, under the military occupation.

One of the challenges we face as journalists or even as activists, is how to take a policy that is a routine, that the people are not able to see, and to make them see it. And this is one reason to make the film, to make this policy a story that will be so strong that will show the human aspects of it in such a powerful way that people will be interested to see it.

I’ve heard some places have been hesitant to maybe distribute the documentary theatrically. Is that something that you have run into?

Adra: Yeah, we still don’t have a distributor in the US, we think it’s because of the subject, they’re not taking it. We wish this will change in the future, because we really want the movie to be shown around the US, and we want millions of people to see it.

What are you hoping the impact will be? 

Adra: We want political change for the situation here.

Abraham: Change is possible, especially if there is willingness from the US leaders to allow us to reach the point of change. The United States is very much complicit in what we are seeing in our movie. For a better future for Palestinians and for Israelis, we need change in US foreign policy, and we hope that the film will contribute to that.

Like that moment with Blair, for example. 

Abraham: It just gives you an example of people’s lives here are getting ruined, and for people in power who are sitting in Washington, DC or in New York or in London, to change that is a matter of lifting their finger to exert pressure on Israel to stop.

Of course, in the long term, we hope that the film — and not only our film, activism and work that we are doing on the ground and abroad — will lead to an end to this occupation, and to a political solution that is based on Palestinians having freedom, and Palestinians and Israelis both having political and individual rights. And the way to do that is the US changing their foreign policy. That is one of the main things that need to change, and if our film can contribute to that, even just a little bit, then I’m very, very happy that we made it.

Benjamin Netanyahu sat down for his regular cabinet meeting and had some words for a new ally – and an old enemy.

“Last week I met with US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley,” the Israeli prime minister told his colleagues. “I thanked her, on your behalf as well, for her decisive words in favor of the state of Israel – and against the anti-Israel obsession at the UN.”

“It is time UNRWA be dismantled,” he declared.

It was June 2017: the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency. The possibilities for Netanyahu – who once bunked in the childhood bed of Trump’s son-in-law – seemed endless. In a few months, the American president would buck decades of foreign policy precedent and move his country’s embassy to the disputed city of Jerusalem.

In the case of UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees – Netanyahu would not get his wish so quickly. It would take another eight years.

The Israeli parliament, or Knesset, on Monday voted through legislation to ban UNRWA from Israel and prohibit any contact between it and Israeli officials. The two laws do not mean the immediate end of the agency. Nor do they technically prevent it from working in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. But given the near-inextricable link between the agency’s ability to function there and the Israeli authorities, they almost certainly mean the end of UNRWA’s operation as we know it.

There are as many opinions on why UNRWA, which provides services and aid to millions of Palestinians across the Middle East, was banned as there are people to ask.

Many point to allegations by the Israel Defense Forces that a handful of UNRWA’s 13,000 employees in Gaza participated in the October 7 massacre, which saw 1,200 people killed and around 250 taken hostage. In a country still reeling from the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, this has been a potent and impossible to ignore argument against UNRWA.

Others see the move as another step in the erosion of Palestinian rights and the removal of their distant but long-promised right to return to the villages, now in Israel, from which they and their ancestors were violently evicted when the Jewish state was created in 1948.

In any case, the head of UNRWA has said that the legislation “will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians, especially in Gaza where people have been going through more than a year of sheer hell.”

‘Low-hanging fruit’

Boaz Bismuth, a Likud member of Knesset, wrote one of the two bills to ban UNRWA, which passed 92 to 10. In the wake of October 7, he believed that dismantling the agency was urgent.

“I did not see December ’49,” when UNRWA was created, he insisted. Nor, he said, was he motivated by the claim that UNRWA perpetuates Palestinian refugee status. “All this is totally irrelevant for me. What was relevant for me in my bill was the fact that they participated on the 7th of October massacre, and this is why they will not work in Israel anymore.”

The Israeli government in January said that 12 UNRWA staff members in Gaza had participated in the Hamas-led attack on Israel, and later added more to that list. The agency immediately fired most of the individuals concerned. A UN investigation found that nine employees “may have” been involved in the October 7 attack.

The Washington Post in February obtained CCTV footage from Kibbutz Be’eri on October, which it said showed one of the UNRWA employees accused by Israel of involvement, carrying the corpse of an Israeli man killed by Hamas militants.

UNRWA to this day maintains that Israel never provided it with evidence against its former employees. The agency says it had regularly provided Israel with a full list of its staff members, and has accused Israel of detaining and torturing some of its staffers, coercing them into making false confessions about ties to Hamas.

But Bismuth said that “for me, UNRWA equals Hamas” – and his view is widespread in Israel. In a country where Netanyahu is politically ascendant against the odds, supporting his party’s legislation was plain old good politics.

“UNRWA was low-hanging fruit for this Israeli government,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime American policymaker in the Middle East who was a key player in the last serious round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, in 2000.

A long history

UNRWA is nearly as old as Israel itself. The violence surrounding the creation of Israel in 1948 displaced close to a million Arabs from their homes in what had been British-mandate Palestine – an event Palestinians call the Nakba, or “catastrophe.”

The UN General Assembly, which had consented to Israel’s creation, declared that all the displaced Arabs should be allowed to return “at the earliest practicable date.” A year later, it created UNRWA “to prevent conditions of starvation and distress.”

To Israelis, UNRWA is an anachronism that represents the unrealistic and distant dream of millions of Palestinians to return to their homes in what is now Israel. That is what Netanyahu means when he says the agency “perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem.” Philippe Lazzarini, the Swiss commissioner-general of UNRWA, has made clear that even if his agency were dissolved, it “will not strip the Palestinians from their refugee status.”

Israelis have long accused UNRWA of perpetuating anti-Israel ideology in schools they run. A UN-commissioned inquiry found that examples in textbooks of anti-Israel bias were “marginal” but nonetheless constituted “a grave violation of neutrality.”

Israeli leaders believe that Palestinians do not deserve their own refugee agency and should permanently resettle where they now live – assisted, if need be, by the agency responsible for all other refugees in the world, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR.

“What makes Palestinian refugees different is that they’re not seeking refuge in a third country,” said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian human rights lawyer. “They want to go home.”

‘What more do they want?’

Saleh Shunnar, displaced from his home in Gaza by the year-long war, knows what it means to be a refugee.

“Israel has always wanted to do this,” he said, speaking from a tent encampment in Deir Al-Balah, in central Gaza. “If they shut down UNRWA, that means there is no Palestinian refugee cause. They took away the Palestinian cause.”

Those fears run deep for many Palestinians. But concerns about the impact on so-called final status negotiations are “tethered to a galaxy far, far away, rather than to the realities back here on planet earth,” said Miller, the former American negotiator.

“I can understand why the Palestinians would regard this as a systematic first step to undermine the right of return,” he said. But the issues facing any negotiations over a Palestinian state are so numerous and so fraught that the right of return is far down the long list of obstacles, he said.

That is particularly the case when so many Palestinians face an imminent humanitarian catastrophe.

“These are the simplest of needs,” Deir Al-Balah resident Ghalia Abd Abu Amra said of the aid she receives. “What more do they want to take from us than what they already have? Our homes are gone, now they want to take UNRWA too?”

The massive tent camps for internally displaced Gazans have steadily become entrenched. Cloth walls become tarpaulin. Mud floors are replaced with wood. This transformation has been happening for decades across the 58 refugee camps run by UNRWA in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the region, as tent camps became residential blocks.

For millions of Palestinians, UNRWA functions as a parallel government. It is a vast organization that provides services that governments – whether in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, or the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – are unable or unwilling to provide. It educates half a million students. It employs 3,000 medical professionals. It helps feed nearly two million people.

“UNRWA has saved Israeli taxpayers billions of dollars over the last 57 years,” said Chris Sidoti, an Australian human rights lawyer who sits on the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “Israel, as the occupying power under the fourth Geneva Convention, is responsible for the care, protection, and the provision of services to persons under occupation.”

“The international community has been doing that by its financial support for UNRWA,” he told journalists in New York. “So if UNRWA is kicked out, the cost for the Israeli taxpayer is going to be ginormous. So this is a decision that is bad for the Palestinians and ridiculous for Israeli taxpayers.”

Bismuth, the Knesset member who authored the UNRWA legislation, said that Israel would step in.

“You will not have a vacuum,” he said. “I feel good with my bill. Because all the services that they got – not only will they continue to get it, but we will even upgrade it.”

Indeed, UNRWA’s benefit to Israel had long been recognized by those in the government responsible for Palestinian affairs, said Nadav Tamir, a former diplomat who now serves as executive director of J Street Israel, a left-wing lobby group. He characterized their view as: “‘Of course UNRWA is problematic, but we don’t have another option, we need someone to take care of the issues.’” Before October 7, he explained, politicians could not overcome the “realpolitik” that UNRWA was an asset in taking a problem off Israel’s plate.

What that will look like remains a mystery to most. Miller is blunt: “Israelis don’t have a long-term solution.” In conversations with UNRWA staff members in the refugee camps around Jerusalem – who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak with the media – confusion reigned.

No one knows whether, when the legislation fully go into effect in three months, schools will remain open or medicine will be delivered. Tens of thousands of Palestinians who work for the agency could soon be unemployed.

“Most Israelis don’t really know the facts,” Tamir said. “They don’t really understand that there is no alternative. They think, ‘Oh, we can just bring another organization, or we could somehow do it on our own.’”

Even if the Israeli leadership decides that it can cast aside the moral issue of providing for Palestinian civilians, shutting down services for millions poses a threat for Israel itself.

“It’s a strategic issue that will promote more terrorism and of course all kind of epidemics that are not stopping at the border,” Tamir said. “So people who really know the situation I think are concerned. But most people and most politicians don’t really care about the reality. It’s all about the perception.”

Zeena Saifi, Abeer Salman, Mohammed Al-Sawalhi, and Shira Gemer contributed to this report.