It's not what the US wants....Palestine bid at the UN

Secretary of state Hillary Clinton clearly warned the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas that the PA's bid for statehood at the UN is 'not what the US wants'. So in a last minute attempt to stop him, she's sending her two man team of advisors on the Middle East to thwart the PA plans. As GuamDiary wrote, one, the two men are pro Israel and make no bones about it; secondly, the al Jazeera files made public earlier this year revealed that the US has steadfastly twisted the PA's arm to concede to Israeli demands which the Zionist state has no intentions in fulfilling as part of a two state solution.
GuamDiary can only surmise that Clinton's last collage try to abort PA's bid at the UN by bringing it back to the sterile negotiating table with an unreliable Israel will be accompanied by threats and menaces, the least of which would be to cut off any and all US aid as much as it is.
With imperial arrogance, the US has issued its 'diktat': 'what we do not want...' Clinton's words are without nuance; they have the pure and simple intention of inflicting the maximum pain on the Palestinians who refuse to play a charade called 'the road map to peace' with Israel. Why does not the US secretary of state pose the right question: 'what do the Palestinians want?'
Clearly it is something little considered: for would US policy makers dare, the Israeli lobby would bring the roof down on the US elites heads; they would challenge 60 years of pro Israel support, but for the rare exception of Eisenhower's threat to Ben Gurion during the Suez crisis 55 years ago to cut off all US economic and military aid.
Clinton steadfastly remains deaf to Abbas' intention of sending the PA bid to the UN Security by Friday 16 September. The US already announced that it would veto it. Thus, we ask why is the Obama administration is continually pitiful political theatre bound to fail? The answer lies in domestic politics, even though a veto would alienate its friends in the Arab and Muslim world.
2012 is a presidential election year so the Jewish vote counts heavily in favour of the Democrats as well as the political contributions. It would be unwise to alienate the pro Israeli lobby which has clout among US lawmakers.
Consider the loss of the disgraced Anthony Wiener's seat in a heavily Democratic district to a little known Republican, in more than a century. The issue introduced by the mean spirited three time mayor of New York Ed Koch was that the Obama was not pro Israel. The big lie worked and the Democrat Weprin, himself an Orthodox Jew, lost.
The US is slow to absorb the rapidly changing Arab world. Clinton's overbearing 'ukase' is symptomatic of how much US policy is fossilised.