140 of 193 UN members already recognise the state of Palestine.
The UN itself considers it a non-member observer state, meaning it can speak, but not vote.
It was given that status when, in 2011 - US threats of a veto were enough to thwart full membership.
Still, it was seen as progress.
This week, the Palestinian envoy to the UN, Riyad Mansour revived the bid.
“It was a historic moment then and now, that historic moment has been revived again.”
A committee is expected to hold a vote on it on Thursday. It would then to go to the Security Council and finally the UN General Assembly.
Gilad Erdan, Israel's UN ambassador, says his country - a full member - is firmly against it.
"The UN has been sabotaging peace in the Middle East for many years. But today marks the beginning of a point of no return."
Maya Ungar is a UN Analyst with the International Crisis Group, an independent organisation working to prevent wars.
She says timing is key.
“I think that the six-month mark of war is particularly symbolic because we’re at a point of reflection. There is a feeling that we are at a point now that we weren’t in 2011 in terms of solidarity of the broader global community with the Palestinian cause.“
While UN membership doesn’t mean a two-state solution - both sides see it as giving Palestine more legitimacy.
Eyal Mayroz, a senior lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney says within Israel, support has gone backwards.
“The public at the moment is very fearful of the creation of a Palestinian state not 70 km from Tel Aviv, but 10 or 5 km from Tel Aviv that may one day fall into Hamas hands. I think the process for Palestinian status as far as Israeli public and politics are concerned has gone backwards because of the 7th October attacks."
He says that fear is stoked by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Mr Netanyahu is one of the many reasons there hasn’t been a two-state solution since the Oslo peace process began 30 years ago.
Analysts say Mr Netanyahu is now clinging onto power because of support from the far-right .. and his threats that a successor would allow statehood.
Eyal Mayroz again:
“I don't think Netanyahu will continue to lead Israel as soon as the war is over. The question is what happens when govt shifts to right-center leadership. A lot would ride on American pressures/ international pressures.”
In its charter, the UN says membership is “open to all other peace-loving states”.
Most members agree that threshold has been met.
But history may repeat: If the US uses its veto power in the Security Council, this bid is over.
US Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield says the US position hasn’t changed.
That position is, membership should only come after a peace deal.
Ben Saul is the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights:
“The US does not take a principled position consistent with international law when it comes to dealing with Israel and Palestine.”
But Maya Ungar says It doesn’t necessarily mean the whole endeavor would be fruitless.
“With the hope that this time around you may actually get some more concessions. Could you elevate this idea of non member statehood, observer status, could you improve the conditions that come with that. We really are in uncharted territory right now which on the one hand means there's an opportunity for nothing to happen but on the other hand means there's an opportunity for real innovation."
Meaning without full membership - they could still claw new powers- like some voting rights or permission to table resolutions.
