Does anyone think that Obama might actually approve (or not block) Palestine's statehood bid the next time it comes up for a vote in the UN Security Council, or has it just been empty rhetoric / political posturing?
In terms of long-term US policy, if Obama genuinely wants to make it less Pro-Israel he needs to build a political consensus around doing so by moving the center ground, something he has arguably done with some help from Netanyahu. But however much the ground may have shifted to some degree, it has not shifted anywhere near enough for an open break to Israel to be acceptable to any major constituency in the US, and if Obama were to do so he would risk undoing whatever long-term movement he has achieved by making it incumbent on the next President, regardless of party, to actively reverse rather than scale back his policy. Hillary would either have to break openly with him, or be placed in a painful and difficult political position for which she would blame Obama and the Pro-Palestinian advisers around him, making her likely to be resentful of their policy once in office even if she had to walk a tightrope now. And it would effectively push Republicans into digging in deeper.
As much as it was an act of extreme pettiness for the 46 Republican Senators to write their letter on the Iran deal, there is a meaningful point that while international agreements are in theory binding, but part of that is because the individuals signing them theoretically speak for their countries and political classes as a whole. Any action Obama were to take in support of Palestine's statehood bid would be an act of personal pique with not just Israel, but American policy generally, and not of the United States congress, the United States public, or even for that matter the Democratic party. In a situation in which the US allowed such a motion to pass on a technicality, how important would it be if it were clear that not only did congress not support it, but that the next President, whether Democratic or Republican also did not consider it in anyway binding on them?
And ultimately it would do little to help the Palestinians. There is this myth that "world opinion" somehow matters. Well it dosen't really matter. As much as South Africa is a problematic example, the South African regime really didn't run into trouble until the United States threw it overboard and that came only after a veto-proof majority in both houses of congress came around to that position. Realistically, as long as Israel has the United States, it can also count on the tacit support of the UK and Eastern Europe, the mercenary interests of Russia/China, and the common interests of India along with much of sub-saharan Africa. Is that an ideal situation? No but absent an alternative policy that does not endanger Israeli survival it will do just fine indefinitely.
Israelis might not have done themselves any favor lately, but this is a really bad time for the Palestinians globally. They are an Arab Islamic community whose major face is a violent Islamic movement in a region where its backers and affiliates are a security threat to every major government, and when popular sentiment in almost the entire non-Islamic world does not look upon violent Muslim resistance movements particularly favorably. Elite opinion may be turning on them, but elite opinion also feels that what is going on with refugees in the Mediterranean is a crime against humanity. Public opinion among actual voters however is a very different thing.
