President Obama blew it yesterday. The Israelis are infuriated, numerous sharp-eyed lawmakers spotted the forced concessions Obama was demanding of Israel and, if former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block is any indication, the most prominent pro-Israel Jewish group is very, very worried. So what does Obama do? He reverses course — fast!

On the BBC last night, Obama immediately nixed his definitive language on the 1967 borders and reverted to language that sounded more in tune with that of former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush:

To the BBC, the president said, “The basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognizing that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides. That’s on the one hand and on the other hand, and this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel is going to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank and that security element is going to be important to the Israelis.” The president said that the Israelis “will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they have seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.”

That is as sure a sign as any that the speech was an overstep, and a misstep, that the Israelis are infuriated and that Obama is now in a pinch.

What to make of all the liberal Jewish groups and pundits who fawned over the speech and insisted there was no change in U.S. policy contained in Obama’s statement on the 1967 borders (which is a misnomer; there is only the 1949 armistice line)? They have, to the extent they had any credibility, discredited themselves as reliable translators to Jews and Americans at large of the peace process. Whether through ignorance or through an insatiable need to defend a liberal president at all costs, they leapt into the fray to deny that Obama said anything damaging at all. The proof of Obama’s misstep is his swift backpedal, which, I suspect, will continue today.

A prominent pro-Israel liberal, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) was one of the first to sound the alarm, saying he liked hearing that Israel was a Jewish state, but Obama missed the boat on several key items:

“First, I am unclear as to why the President did not recount the three conditions of the Quartet, comprised of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia, for dealing with Hamas. (1) Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist, (2) Hamas must renounce terrorism, and (3) Hamas must commit to all of the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians. Those conditions, laid down in 2006, establish the foundation of our policy toward Hamas and must not be disregarded or glossed over. Further, we cannot expect Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority which has Hamas, a terrorist organization, as a working partner until Hamas accepts these conditions. “Second, the 1967 armistice lines were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them. Moreover, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which forms the basis of any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians, does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines in exchange for peace. The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel’s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. “The reason that there has been no progress toward a peace agreement is that the Palestinians have refused to sit down with Israel and have used every excuse under the sun to refuse to negotiate. President Abbas, with all his talk of moderation, has been anything but. It is time to tell the Palestinians that the only way to statehood is through negotiations at the bargaining table, not through unilateral actions. “The President still has the opportunity to elaborate on these points when he speaks on Sunday about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and I, for one, will listen carefully to what he has to say.”

It is interesting to note which pro-Israel groups and individuals were entirely silent yesterday — AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) [See update below] and a fleet of other strong pro-Israel Democrats (e.g., Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.). They no doubt were slumped in their chairs, slack-jawed. They probably would be tremendously relieved if the president in essence excised his offensive comments from further discussion. If not, they will, as in the settlement-freeze controversy, be forced to choose between partisan loyalty and being true to their convictions.

As for Obama, whether he cloddishly used language without understanding its full import or whether he intended once again to stick it to Bibi Netanyahu, the damage is done. The Israelis are reminded that Obama is not a president who truly understands the Jewish state and can be counted on to defend it.

Jewish voters who were nervous before are likely more nervous now. And just imagine, in a second term Obama won’t necessarily care what either the Israelis or pro-Israel voters have to say. There will be no backpedals then.

UPDATE (11:32 a.m.): Sen. Lieberman has issued a statement that must have the White House reeling. After nice words about the rest of the speech he bashes the president on Israel: