And of course the U.S. is going to maintain its opposition to their submittal of this resolution, and of course it's going to use that opposition to pressure the council to delay any action on it - because the U.S. does NOT want to be placed in the position of having to show its hand...which will almost certainly be in favor, or worst case, an abstention. But even the worst case scenerio of a U.S. veto - despite its well known stance on the issue - would likely be the final straw needed to convince the international community, to begin taking individual actions against the occupation, because it would reveal the American inability as an objective sponsor of the peace process. It's long been known that AIPAC's control of congress, and its powerful political influence, has bridled unfettered action on U.S. policy by the state department and the administrations of at least the last four presidents. A veto here would make it glaringly clear to the international community that continued U.S. sponsorship of a so-called "negotiated agreement" will lead to another 40 years of the same - and that it's time to pursue a different path.
Key U.S. House Democrat cites troublesome issues in Iran nuclear deal (Reuters)
from the article: U.S.: Possible UN censure of settlements 'not helpful' to peace process