..................
I wouldn't be so sure the US will object.
Since the UN is so anti-Israel it’s a wonder they hadn’t done it before.
Full recognition of a Palestinian state is the last thing they want.
If the UN does this, then the borders they now occupy will be the internationally recognized ones and they cannot then lay claim to any more Israeli territory.
They want it ALL........................
I am Jewish. A few weeks ago there was a guest speaker at our synogogue, who is a very liberal former congregant who also worked for a liberal Dem Congressman here in South Texas. He now works for AIPAC, so he has to watch his words.
He indicated that it was important to back AIPAC so that the Congress would be more pro-Israel (OK, no problem there), and warned about the upcoming UN vote on Israel in the Security Council. After services were over, I approached him and mentioned the US veto, and indicated that unless Obama decides to vote "present" or for the resolution, Israel had nothing to worry about. I got a lot of hemming and hawwing, with some bliss-ninnie nonsense regarding "getting along with other nations" and being "able to get other things we wanted from them afterwards." I told him that I didn't give a damn about getting along with the likes of Chad, Malaysia and Venezuela, proven haters of both the US and Israel, and that there were other ways to get what we wanted out of them in the few circumstances that they'd have anything that we needed or wanted.
I am sick to death of my brain-damaged co-religionists. However, the point remains that THIS IS ALL ON OBAMA. No US veto = stabbing an ally in the back (which would be kind of a chicken$hit thing to do, wouldn't it?).
A more rational question would be...
Does the UN Security Council have the authority to impose a "Palestinian" State?