Everything's relative, OJ. Ms. Dowd and Prof. Krugman are far more in need of intervetion on the list of New York Times columnists. Mr. Friedman will simply have to wait his turn and hope Bob Herbert and Frank Rich also aren't slotted for earlier therapy sessions...

Ah yes, "nodes of friction."

Reduce those nodes of friction and everything is hunky dory.

And Friedman does have a point, arguing here what many have been arguing for a long time. For those many, in fact, he's hit the nail on the head.

The "problem," or "challenge," or "opportunity" (what have you) is that once one node of friction is out of the way, the next node of friction (i.e., Israel's existence) will have to be addressed.

"Nodes of friction."

(By the way, "insane" is only insane if it doesn't fit in with one's view of reality. One would think that THF has covered the middle east for long enough to realize at least this.)

TLF, that is.

You're absolutely correct Orrin. What rational editor would approve a sentence like:

"In sum, Israel should withdraw from the territories, not because it is weak, but because it must remain strong...

So, to remain strong you withdraw, you opt for a smaller country because it is defensible (even if you have the military might to take more territory), you withdraw to reduce the "daily friction", and finally, you do this to strengthen American influence in the region.

This man is totally ignorant of history and yet is the NYTimes premiere correspondent on the Middle East. The post-modern barbarians are indeed already inside the gates.

Barry:

It's not so much Israel's existence that causes friction, but that the PALESTINIANS exist.

After getting beaten like a rental car four times, it's likely that the Arab nations would be content to bluster and do almost nothing of a military nature, if the Palestinians weren't around to keep things at a boil, as well as carry out the actual suicide missions.

In the end, it may well be that Israel and Palestine cannot co-exist. Since we already know that no country in the region, nor ALL of the regional nations together, can take Israel, that would mean...

Except that it's a solution that is so counter-intuitive that its brilliance is now accepted by most people on the planet.

That Israel is balking means that it is the number one danger to world peace.

Because Israel has been balking means that (sigh, we hate to have to say this, but) Israel may well have forfeited its right to exist.

But of course that's the only reason that the Palestinians, qua Palestinians, exist at all.

"What's happening is that this Arab media explosion is feeding the images of this Israeli-Palestinian violence to this Arab population explosion — radicalizing it and melding in the heads of young Arabs and Muslims the notion that the biggest threat to their future is J.I.A. — "Jews, Israel and America."

wouldn't it be faster and cheaper to take out Al-Jazzera?