Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has of late come under intense pressure from President Barack Obama of the United States - particularly following Mr Obama's historic address to the Muslim world from Cairo (in which he reaffirmed the US Administration's commitment to a two-state solution) - and, closer to home, from hardline right-wingers in Israel's fragile coalition Government.
The latter have threatened to unseat their leader at the first sign of a weakening in favour of the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Thus, any analysis of Mr Netanyahu's landmark apparent acceptance of the notion of a Palestinian state, and the small print attendant upon it, must be read in this context.
President Obama has already welcomed the speech, delivered at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv earlier this month, calling it "an important step forward".
Reaction from within Israel has been muted, but less silent have been Palestinian representatives who appear to have dismissed the "olive branch".
A spokesman for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas rejected the Israeli prime minister's speech, saying "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made, and challenge(s) the Palestinian, Arab and American positions".
Mr Netanyahu's gambit and its inhospitable return of service from the Palestinians are statements made for public consumption and for a variety of constituencies for whom such highly charged rhetoric is routine.
However noteworthy and welcome the speech from the Israeli prime minister, Middle-east peace negotiations are a minefield of historical claim and counterclaim, with numerous prominent and potential deal-breaking issues to be navigated.
And while the "concession" is an historic one in respect of Mr Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud party, it falls along a continuum that has grappled with the two-state solution in the past - most notably in 2000 when negotiations between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak came to nought over a list of diverse definitions.
Mr Netanyahu, having led Israel before - when Bill Clinton occupied the White House - is no stranger to those problematic definitions and covered off a number of them in his speech.
Half a million Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and on the West Bank, even though settlements on occupied land are regarded as illegal under international law, and are regarded by the United States Administration as an impediment to progress on peace.
While not rejecting outright Mr Obama's call for a "stop" to Israel's settlement project, he did say that while he did not intend to expand the settlements, provisions had to be made to allow for "normal life" to continue among the settlers - widely taken to mean that building could continue to accommodate the growth of the settlers' families.
He set the condition that any future Palestinian state must be unarmed, and, equally contentious, that refugees who had fled or were forced out of homes during the 1948 war could not be allowed to return to what today is Israel.
Further, Jerusalem would remain united and under Israel's control and that Palestinians must meet the "fundamental condition" of recognising Israel as a Jewish State.
So while on the one hand Mr Netanyahu has shown the Americans and the international community a willingness to contemplate a Palestinian state, on the other he has shown his own hard-liners (and the Palestinians themselves) he is not about to concede on long-contentious and core matters: the settlements, an armed Palestinian state, Palestinian sovereignty that goes beyond "flag, anthem and administration", and the question of internal democracy in Israel with increased rights for non-Jewish Israelis.
That is to say, he has done enough, perhaps, to soften the pressure directed at him from Washington, but not so much as to undermine authority in his own governing coalition.
Benjamin Netanyahu has walked a fine line so far and kept his balance, but one false step in the demanding business of positioning Israel with respect to what it understands and can accept as a two-state solution - an understanding that diverges critically from that promoted by influential Palestinians - could lead to his peremptory downfall, the threat of which he is doubtless acutely aware.
