Senator Obama, in his remarks in Ohio this week to a gathering of Jewish leaders, went a long way toward allaying any doubts that may have lingered in the community about his Israel policy and, more broadly, the spirit of goodwill and friendship that he had for American Jews. In our view, as we have made clear previously, those doubts and concerns were always ill-founded and, in fact, were being stoked by Mr. Obama’s political rivals.

To those interested in the issue, we commend, at nysun.com, both our previous editorials and the transcript of this week’s session, as well as Eli Lake’s dispatch of last week on Mr. Obama’s foreign policy team. That dispatch quoted a former special Middle East coordinator for the Clinton administration, Dennis Ross, as saying he saw no difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on Israel policy. Mrs. Clinton, meantime, has just sent to speak for her in Ohio Ambassador Indyk, who played a role, during her husband’s administration, in putting pressure on Israel to treat with the Palestinian Arabs.

Mr. Obama made clear in his Ohio remarks that he would not negotiate with Hamas. “You can’t have a conversation with somebody who doesn’t think you should be on the other side of the table,” he said. “There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can’t negotiate with. We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them. That’s the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon.” He mocked the idea of softness against the terrorists. “It’s not like we’re a bunch of folks asking to hold hands and sing Kumbaya,” he said.

While Mr. Obama helped himself at the meeting in Ohio, a close reading of the transcript of the session left us not entirely without concern. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel,” Mr. Obama said, which came off not only as inaccurate but as a gripe and may yet haunt him if Israeli voters choose to restore Likud to power.

Second, in discussing the parameters of a future state for the Palestinian Arabs, he said, “It’s going to have to be contiguous. It’s going to have to work. It’s going to have to function in some way. That’s in Israel’s interest by the way.” Well, we’re not so sure that the Israelis are looking to Mr. Obama — or Mrs. Clinton or Senator McCain — to lecture them in respect of what’s in their interest.

Mr. Obama is clearly a quick learner, and it certainly looks as if his heart is in the right place. But being supportive of Israel means, in our view, not siding as an American presidential contender either with Labor, Likud, or Kadima, but respecting Israeli democracy. That means letting Israel judge its own interests. If Mr. Obama becomes President Obama, he will have enough to worry about when it comes to American interests without telling the Israelis what is in their interests. So one can say that getting all this right now is in Mr. Obama’s interest.