Both John Judis and Matthew Yglesias misinterpret what I wrote about The Nation editorial on the two-state solution. It is true that the editors of that magazine voice their support for such a solution. But they couch that support with vague statements like this one: "For many years this magazine has supported a two-state solution. ... But we recognize that as realities on the ground shift, so must our thinking." And then there's this, the editorial's final sentence, which leaves the very question of their ostensible support for a two-state solution up in the air: "The two peoples must be afforded the right to live in peace and dignity, on fully equal terms, whether in one state or two." And, while The Nation may occasionally express its support for the two-state solution, no other journal of opinion has printed more pieces over the years expressing support for a one-state solution (the current issue includes 3 articles which do just that). This is not to say that magazines ought not to print articles expressing viewpoints with which the editors disagree--but The Nation has so frequently run articles calling for a one-state solution (a rather weighty issue, considering that it would entail the dissolution of a U.N. member state) that it puts the sincerity of their supposed support for a two-state solution into serious question. But what really gets my goat about the editorial--and what both Judis and Yglesias conveniently ignore--is The Nation's overly sanguine description of Palestinian politics. It is a common tactic of those unfairly critical of Israel to equate both the Israeli and Palestinian polities in terms of their temperament, political culture, and desire for peace. That Palestinian parties are actually waging war against one another (while still finding time to lob missiles at Israeli civilians) as Israeli parties debate in parliament does not seem to change The Nation's analysis. Its editorial contrasts the overwhelming majority of stubborn Israelis who "viscerally, emphatically oppose both the binational and secular democratic models" with "[t]he mainstream of the Palestinian liberation movement," which, "for its part, has for three decades supported the two-state solution," (not true) "and even the Islamist Hamas," which "has indicated that it would acquiesce" (so untrue it's amazing The Nation would even try to pull this on its readership). Finally, I respectfully disagree with Judis that criticizing a magazine for hoodwinking its readers (into thinking that Hamas is rational) and for persisting in a falsehood (that a known Communist spy was not a Communist spy) is in any way akin to the echo-chamber tactics of the worst left-wing blogs. --James Kirchick