A spark from the firestorm known as the fight for a Palistinian State has come to our shores.

No.  It’s not quite time for the UN vote, yet.  More about that in a moment. This war concerns New York City subway billboards.

Per nydailynews.com:

The dispute began with posters urging an end to U.S. military aid for Israel, prompting a City Council member to demand an end to the ads – and spawning an upcoming series of counter-ads.

“This is a highly political campaign with a controversial underlying anti-Israel message,” Councilman Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn) wrote MTA President Thomas Prendergast.

“I would urge you to disallow and/or remove these advertisements.”

The group behind the ads, the Westchester County-based WESPAC Foundation, said the subway spots are intended to encourage dialogue and not dissension.

“If the councilman thinks they’e anti-Israeli, he should say why,” said Felice Gelman, a member of the group. “I have family in Israel. They deserve peace. And U.S. policies are not helping.”

Israel was slated to receive roughly $3 billion in military aid this year from the U.S. The ads – with the tagline “End U.S. military aid to Israel” – appeared in 18 stations beginning Sept. 5.

The pro-Israel group Stand With Us said it planned to counter the WESPAC campaign with a series of ads appearing in stations later this month.

“We didn’t ask for a billboard war,” said the nonprofit group’s CEO, Roz Rothstein. “But the group putting them up wants a response, and we have to give them a response.”

The answering ad shows two small boys with their arms over each other’s shoulders. “The Palestinian Authority Must Accept The Jewish State & Teach Peace, Not Hate,” the copy reads.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said it had no problem with the ads.

What’s causing all this?

Palestinian Authority Leader Mahmoud Abbas explains (grab your waders):

The Palestinian Authority will be seeking full United Nations membership in its statehood bid later this month, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said Friday.

“I’m going to the UN in order to demand our legitimate rights and secure full membership for the state of Palestine,” the Palestinian president said in Ramallah. “We hope to secure full membership.”

“We are going to the Security Council,” Abbas added, but then made it clear that “all options are open” and that a final decision has not been made yet.

Abbas said the Palestinians will be aiming to “secure independence in the 1967 borders and its holy capital, Jerusalem.” He also urged his countrymen to avoid violence, saying “we must avoid force.”

“We are the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and we intend to keep going until we secure full independence,” he said.

Abbas added that the Palestinians are proceeding with their United Nations statehood bid in September because US President Barack Obama said previously he wanted to see a Palestinian state.

‘We don’t want to isolate Israel’

Yeah, right.

President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) spoke to the nation last May, announcing the push to move Israel back to its 1967 Border in a move designed to form a separate Palestinian Country.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his response, told all those involved that the moving back to the 1967 Borders would make Israel indefensible.

Of course, Bibi was right.

If Israel were forced back to those lines, their country would be exactly 8 MILES WIDE at one point. In this supersonic age, that’s not enough air space to do anything about an enemy attack.

Now, a few days before the showdown at the UN, Obama and his Administration have changed their minds.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, speaking last Monday to a Christian Science Monitor Banquet,  said that:

A showdown in New York could have adverse negative consequences for the Palestinian people and for our partners and allies at a time when things are already fragile.

She said that, instead, that Israelis and Palestinians must come together for peace talks.

Per politico.com:

If there is a vote, Rice said, the effect on Palestinian “relations with the United States is for the president and the Congress to decide.”

Rice said that “steps to try to circumvent” peace talks, such as a U.N. vote on statehood, “are ultimately counterproductive and self-defeating.”

If there is a vote approving Palestinian statehood, “This isn’t one day of hoo-ha and celebration … and then everybody goes home,” Rice said.

Countries that would vote for Palestinian statehood would “have a responsibility to own the consequences of their vote,” she said. A U.N. resolution wouldn’t create borders, improve the economy or otherwise set Palestinians on a path to true statehood.

The Obama administration has mounted an intense campaign in recent days to head off the Palestinian initiative. U.S. Middle East peace envoy David Hale and National Security Council adviser Dennis Ross met with Abbas in Ramallah last week, urging him to ditch the effort. In addition, the U.S. has been working with its three partners in the so-called quartet — the European Union, Russia and the U.N. — to craft an alternative proposal to restart peace talks.

There would be “real-world implications” of a U.N. statehood vote, Rice said, and U.S. diplomats are having “very plain discussions” about the potential fallout with countries — including a majority of General Assembly members — that are seen as favoring the Palestinian resolution.

The U.S. has pledged to veto a statehood measure in the U.N. Security Council. However, the U.S. lacks any official power to prevent the broader General Assembly from upgrading the Palestinian delegation from its current status as a nonvoting observer “entity” to a nonvoting observer “state.” With that enhanced status, the Palestinians could take some actions against Israel, including filing cases in the International Criminal Court.

My, how things have changed since last May.  You don’t think that the Jewish uprising in New York’s 9th Congressional District, resulting in underdog Republican Bob Turner’s victory and the fact that only 60% of American Jews still support Obama and the Democrats, has anything to do with this change of heart toward the UN vote on the part of the Obama Administration, do you?

Naw.  Of course not.