The Palestinians are trying to play an ace they have already played. When the Palestinian National Council proclaimed an independent state in 1988, the move was endorsed by the UN General Assembly of all UN members in Resolution 43/177.

However, apart from changing the name of their observer mission at the UN for the Palestine Liberation Organisation to “Palestine”, the Palestinians failed to use their declaration of statehood to much effect.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza, some hoped the self-governing Palestinians would turn the area into a mini-Dubai. Instead, it came to resemble a dictatorial Islamic emirate.

The United States, under President Bush, made the “two-state solution” official US policy. The UN Security Council backed the concept in Resolution 1397 in 2002.

Yet it is virtually certain that the Obama Administration, possibly using procedural devices with European help, will block the Palestinians’ latest request for the Security Council to recognise the state of Palestine.

By going to the UN, the Palestinians hope to put the Obama Administration on the spot, after its perceived recent tilt towards Israel on West Bank settlements. The US, however, will almost certainly continue to insist that recognition of a Palestinian state must follow, not precede, final status negotiations. Although the Palestinians need Security Council recognition to qualify as a UN member state, they do not need to be a UN member state to be able to accede to various international treaties. Some European diplomats are urging them to do so. The Palestinian Authority, for instance, has already asked the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to pursue alleged Israeli war crimes in this year’s Gaza war.

The prosecutor has no jurisdiction over Gaza because neither the Palestinian Authority nor Israel are members of The Hague-based court, and he has not been asked by the UN Security Council to intervene, although the Palestinians, in an exercise of their claimed statehood, could sign up as a state-party to the court.

Such a move would not grant the international prosecutor retrospective jurisdiction over the last Gaza war, but it would subject Israel to the court’s rules in any future military action.