I have no idea what that subtle shift was. I was under the impression this has always been the US policy. I can personally remember former presidents being against some of the settlements.<quoted text>
From the first NYT article I posted above:
Mr. Obamaís statement represented a subtle, but significant shift, in American policy. And it thrust him back into the regionís most nettlesome dispute at a time when conditions would seem to make reaching a deal especially difficult.
Read the article and I'm not clear what the "subtle, but significant shift, in American policy" was??
And how about this?
Pushed by Obama, Democrats Alter Platform Over Jerusalem
By MARK LANDLER
Published: September 5, 2012
CHARLOTTE, N.C.ó President Obama, seeking to quell a storm of criticism from Republicans and pro-Israel groups, directed the Democratic Party on Wednesday to amend its platform to restore language declaring Jerusalem the Israeli capital.
As per the capital - it doesnt matter what the plank is. What matters is what the State Dept does. There was a recent court case which ( that empowered the state dept to do as it pleases despite the fact that US law requires the US to recognize Jerusalem.
"....At issue is whether Congress overstepped its authority when it passed a law in 2002 requiring that Americans born in Jerusalem be allowed to name Israel as their birthplace in passports and other official documents.
The State Department has refused to enforce the law, saying that it interferes with a matter of foreign policy that is the presidentís to decide..."