In my interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on the Atlantic Monthly website today, "Hussein Ibish on the Fantasy World of One-Staters," I suggested that the organization Jewish Voice for Peace was solidly in favor of a one-state agenda for Israel and the Palestinians. In response I received the following note from Sydney Levy, Director of Campaigns for JVP:

Your statement is factually not true, as I presume you are aware, since you came to our National Conference in 2007, more or less at the same time as we were publicly welcoming the two-state Saudi peace plan.

As activists in the movement for peace and justice in the Middle East, JVP members are often asked for our position on how the Palestine / Israel conflict should ultimately be solved. Our mission statement endorses neither a one-state solution, nor a two-state solution. Instead it promotes support for human rights and international law. As a result, we have members and supporters on both sides of this question, as well as many others who, like the organization as a whole, are agnostic about it. If a short answer is required, it would be that we support any solution that is consistent with the national rights of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews, whether one binational state, two states, or some other solution.

In fact, I was laboring under the impression, on some decent authority, that the JVP position on this issue had actually shifted considerably since the 2007 conference that I did indeed attend. I have been somewhat misled and glad to have been wrong about this. I am delighted to receive and report this clarification and to correct the record. I will not repeat the error.

I am uncomfortable, as I have said many times before, with "agnosticism" about the goal of Middle East peace for important political and strategic reasons, but there is a big difference between that and one-state advocacy as such, and its important to be accurate.