Obama's outlook, and that of the two or three officials closest to him, would appear to follow the Meretz vision of a two-state solution rather than that of the governing Likud-Labor axis. Or, generalizing in the highly relevant shorthand of the day, it may mark the distinction between the J Street vision and that of AIPAC.
In a little over a week's time, President Barack Obama will make the short journey from the White House to Washington's Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, to address the annual General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America.
In a warm and welcoming atmosphere, the president, who received such overwhelming support from Jewish voters in his election campaign - 78 percent, according to exit polls - will presumably speak to the large, attentive audience about the vitality of America's Jewish community and its contribution to America, and about the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel.
As previous presidents have done in speeches through the decades, he will probably stress the values shared by the two allied nations - the common commitments to democracy, to personal freedoms, to equality and tolerance - that bridge the geographical distance between them. And he will likely discuss the rewards awaiting Israel if only a path can be found to peace with the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular.
Much as his envoy, National Security Adviser James Jones, has argued on Obama's behalf in a number of recent speeches, the president may well also assert that success in Israeli-Arab peacemaking could have extraordinarily wide repercussions - "ripples and echoes," as Jones put it, potentially clearing a path to greater security, stability and harmony not only in the Middle East but across the globe. Notwithstanding the challenges in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al, Obama may even brand Israeli-Arab peacemaking, as Jones has done, his top priority - the global problem in most urgent need of a solution.
If he and his team have internalized some of the criticism emanating from Israel in recent months, he may do better than he did in his Cairo speech in June and speak of Israel's legitimacy less as a response to centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, and more on the basis of the Jews' historic connection to this land. He will likely highlight Palestinian rights, too, perhaps invoking a formulation along the lines of Palestinian children deserving hope and Israeli children deserving security.
The goal, he will likely say, is "two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."
These are the lines he delivered at the UN General Assembly last month, and that were repeated, absolutely word for word, in his UN Ambassador Susan Rice's speech at Shimon Peres's President's Conference in Jerusalem last week.
As he has in the past, and again echoing previous presidents, Obama may note that time is short, that courage is required, that difficult sacrifices will have to be made. Doubtless he will pledge his own personal commitment, and that of his administration, to Israel's well-being and to the cause of Middle East peace.
He will have meant every word of what he has said about supporting Israel. And he will be widely applauded for it.
WHAT MAY be left unsaid, however, is that this president, in contrast to his immediate predecessor, among others, does not appear persuaded that his commitment to Israel should extend to its expansion beyond pre-1967 dimensions.
Where president George W. Bush reached understandings with prime minister Ariel Sharon about facts on the West Bank ground - namely, the large Jewish population at certain major settlement blocs - precluding a return to the '67 parameters, the Obama administration initially sought to shake off any such understandings. It then made emphatically plain its dim view of construction anywhere beyond the '67 lines by demanding a complete halt to all settlement building, including in the major blocs and in east Jerusalem.
Strikingly, an ADL survey this week indicated, Americans may be far more skeptical than their president about the kind of "peace dividends" that might result from a freeze on settlements. The survey found that, even were all settlement construction to be halted, 53% of adult Americans believe leaders of the Arab world would continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, and only 25% believe the Palestinians would be prepared to achieve a final resolution of the conflict.
For his part, then-candidate Obama set out his philosophy quite unmistakably when he spoke to me during his visit to Israel in July of last year. Asked whether Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank, for security, religious, historic or other reasons, he replied that "Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously... There are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security."
Elaborating what he would presumably consider to be a pragmatist's position, he added that "Israel may seek '67-plus and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party." The Palestinians, too, he went on, "are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries?"
