It's hard to really know what Senator Barack Obama wanted to achieve when he spoke last month at the America Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference.

He definitely wanted to prove to the 5000 delegates that he will be a good president for Israel, a friendly one. This has been his goal for quite a while now, starting with the first major speech on Israel, a year and a half ago, to a group of AIPAC supporters in Chicago. And to some degree he even succeeded. Some Jewish voters might still feel that Obama will not be as strong a supporter of Israel as Republican John McCain; they might take an issue with some of the positions he uttered regarding talks with Iran; they might raise questions about some of the policy advisors he surrounded himself with; but by and large, they got the message: Obama is making an effort. He is not hostile.

He was well received in this AIPAC speech a couple of weeks ago ? the morning after he clinched the Democratic nomination. The room was filled with positive energy. And then, in just one sentence, Obama seemed to go overboard: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided", the Illinois senator said. Undivided! Not even George W. Bush, the greatest friend at least in the eyes of Israelis, committed himself to such position. Could Obama really mean that?

The answer was quite obvious - and this week Obama made sure to make it official: no, he did not. Certainly not in the way some angry Palestinians and delusional Israelis have interpreted his words. "The truth is," Obama said in an interview this week, "that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech." What he meant to say was "that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent."

Thus, just a week before he makes a celebrated trip to Jerusalem, the headlined preceding his visit were in the style of: Obama backtracks on undivided Jerusalem. "Poor phrasing" indeed - but also poor timing. This can cost him in some anti-Obama demonstrations in Jerusalem next week. Not exactly the message he'd like to convey to the American voter at home. Obama got the worst of all possible worlds: he enraged both Palestinians and Israelis, one at the time. That's the price of talking about the most delicate of all delicate issues - Jerusalem - without thinking first.

However, Obama will be traveling to Israel, and to the Palestinian Authority, and will have meetings with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas in a week in which Abbas, amazingly, seems to be the stronger politically than his Israeli counterpart. He will travel to Ramallah, and most probably to the town of Sderot as well. McCain will be able to claim that when he was in Sderot it was under the threat of fire ? Obama got lucky and will only see it after the cease fire has taken hold.

Obama does not expect that this trip will change perceptions over night. A Gallup poll published last week has revealed that most Orthodox Jews will vote for McCain, most other Jews for Obama. The J Street poll on which I wrote yesterday has a similar message. Essentially, this poll could not point to any major shift in Jewish public opinion: maybe those voters have already made their minds.

And anyway, investing such huge effort in the Jewish vote does not make much sense. The Obama camp long ago realized that a script in which the tiny Jewish community will be the one to cast the decisive vote is very unlikely to materialize. Thus, one should look at Obama's courting of the Jewish vote as part of his larger effort to reintroduce himself to the American voters.

Getting the Jewish voters on board is not the goal but rather the tool. If one follows such logic, the result will be something along these lines: Obama wants Americans to be assured that he is patriotic, that he understands the difference between good and evil, that will be standing on the right side of the major conflicts or these stormy times. If the Jewish community can be convinced that he will stand with Israel - Obama can claim a small victory. He can show that with the right approach and the adequate message he can win over suspicious voters.

Hence, traveling to Israel sends a message of exactly the right tone - assuming no poorly crafted statements will be made (Dennis Ross will be traveling with Obama to help make sure it all goes well):

I will stand with Israel, but will also work for peace (Obama will travel to Ramallah, McCain did not).

I am a world leader (proof: I know Shimon Peres).

Israelis find me acceptable (there's a lot of curiosity regarding in Israel, and he will be received with great fanfare).

Moderate Palestinians find me acceptable (the Palestinian Authority will probably make sure not to have noisy demonstrations against Obama).

If all goes well, Hamas leaders in Gaza will make some derogatory statements toward the distinguished guest. This will enable Obama to show that the bad guys do not want him - meaning, he is one of the good guys.