Much has already been said about President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. The many good points — his very outreach to Muslims, the candor of his message on regressive trends in the Muslim world, his strong affirmation of U.S. support for Israel as a "Jewish homeland," his call to the Arab world to recognize Israel — have been enumerated.

And elements of concern — lack of context on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the failure to mention the historic Jewish connection to the land as the basis for Israel's legitimacy, the impression of equating the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering, the possible weakening of the U.S. position on Iran — have also been enumerated.

The real question going forward is how this speech relates to policy trends that have already been enunciated and what does it say about the way the president will proceed toward his goals.

The president reiterated certain themes which, in my view, have positive value but only if approached in a prudent fashion.  First is the idea of openness or honesty. Just as in personal relations, there is a time for complete openness and honesty and there is a time when the less said, the better. In his speech his honesty was directed at both sides. However, public comments directed at Israel by administration officials in recent weeks — whether from the president himself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel or Vice President Joe Biden — are hardly the way to deal with a longtime ally nor the way to make it easier for Israeli leaders to move quietly toward compromise. Honesty is important both with friends and foes; but, particularly with friends, there needs to be far more private consultation and discussion than public declamations.

Second is the theme of engagement reiterated by the president in his Cairo address, particularly regarding Iran. The fact that the U.S., as opposed to Europe, has not tried talking to the Iranians makes it worth a try. But the president needs to pay more attention to the history of several years of negotiations between the British, French and Germans with the Iranian regime, in which the Iranians gave nothing while continuing on the way to a bomb. It is not Israel's comments that should lead Obama to talk of a hard deadline, but that European experience.

Third is the concept of a balanced U.S. approach to the conflict. If this is directed toward saying that each side has to make concessions, as the president indicated in his speech, that's realism and that's a legitimate appeal to the Muslim world. If, however, as also was part of the president's speech, an impression is left that Palestinian suffering is comparable to the Holocaust, or that Israel has simply been responsible for Palestinian suffering, ignoring Israel's peace offers and Palestinian rejectionism, that's unhelpful pandering which ignores the moral difference between the sides and is a poor basis for a U.S. role as a interlocutor.

Finally, it is one thing for the U.S. to say it needs to be more involved in moving peace forward. It also is welcome that the president has said that he can't impose an agreement on the parties but he can move the process.

On the other hand, when the president's advisers let out the message that this is "Israel's moment of truth" and that they intend to bring peace in Obama's first term, that diminishes the understanding that is necessary about the obstacles coming from the Palestinian side — including the control of Gaza by Hamas and the demand for the right of return of refugees. History tells us that when the U.S. sees Israel as the party to pressure, it unnecessarily causes tension between two allies, the U.S. and Israel. It does nothing to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, which at its core is still about Arab refusal to accept Israel's legitimacy; and it diverts the region from bigger challenges, in this case Iran, its nuclear program and the spread of Islamic extremism.

The president's new approach to foreign policy, in general, and the Middle East, in particular, offers some promising elements, as embodied in his Cairo speech. Openness, engagement, appealing to both sides, greater involvement in Middle East issues can all be good things. The challenge is to avoid some of the pitfalls that already have surfaced in implementing this approach. 

Most of all, the administration needs to avoid seeing the problems as zero-sum, in which in order to satisfy one party, it has to be at the expense of the other. That has been the philosophy of the Arabs toward Israel. That has to stop. They must realize the Middle East can be a place where Arabs and Israelis can each have their own sovereignties and they can build a better region for all.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.