A "crashing wave of applause" filled the hall in which the general assembly was meeting in Flushing Meadow Park, the temporary headquarters of the new United Nations, when the French representative voted for the resolution which partitioned Palestine. The French vote was taken as a signal that the resolution would prevail. "The chamber," wrote Alistair Cooke, our correspondent, "was crackling with currents of elation and despair."

That was 65 years ago on Thursday. The elation of course was Jewish, the despair Arab. Underneath those contrasting emotions was a certain similarity of view. Both sides knew the world body's decision was worse than imperfect, would settle nothing in principle, would have to be maintained by force or the threat of force, and would lead to trouble. And so it has proved – for more than half a century. One need look no further than the recent round of bombing and rocket firing in Gaza and southern Israel to grasp that the issue of Palestine was not settled in those optimistic days after the end of the second world war, but was instead exacerbated and magnified.

The question is again before the general assembly, with the ironic difference that the Palestinians, who opposed partition in 1947, now endorse it, in the sense that they are seeking to be accepted as a state by the UN, while the Israelis, who endorsed it, now seek to avoid it, in the sense that they would, if they could, deny the Palestinians that new status. Britain, weary of the burden that Palestine had long been, abstained. On Wednesday, the foreign secretary said Britain might do so again, although the preference would be to support non-member observer state status for the Palestinians – which is what they are seeking – if they make certain side commitments. The Americans are, of course, likely to vote no or to abstain in the assembly. In the security council, which has to recommend such status before referring it back to the assembly, they have indicated that they will veto the resolution. These are all important matters, but in a sense less significant than the symbolic shift which a positive vote would represent.

A big majority would include a number of countries that normally follow the American lead, and would thus put the United States on notice that, particularly after the Arab spring, it cannot continue to let the situation drift. It might also strengthen President Mahmoud Abbas and provide a counterbalance to the dependence on the use of force by Hamas. And it could, in theory, help bring about a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is not clear that either side is ready for such a new start. Yet theatre can nevertheless on occasion change international politics in unexpectedly radical and sometimes welcome ways.