Thomas Friedman makes many good points in his most recent column. I especially liked the following:

The Palestinians still act as if they believe they can get more out of Israel by making Israelis feel insecure rather than by making them feel secure. After a while, you can't call this a mistake. After a while, you have to ask whether it reflects a conviction that a thriving Jewish presence in the middle of the Islamic world is simply not acceptable to them.

Y' think? What gave it away?

More seriously, the Ari Shavit quote seems on-target as well:

"I compare it to open-heart surgery. Israelis know that if we don't do it, if we don't separate, we will die. But if we do it in a rushed or messy way, we will also die. So when Mitzna calls for separation, 70 percent of Israel agrees. But when he says he is ready to do it unilaterally, if necessary, or to negotiate with Arafat, or even to negotiate under fire while the Intifada goes on, most people refuse to go along. It feels wrong to them in their guts. So they want a left-wing surgery to be carried out by a right-wing doctor. The problem is, Sharon won't carry out that surgery. He is so committed to the settlements that he built, he appears to be paralyzed."

I have a problem with Friedman's usual conclusion, though:

But if there is no separation, by 2010 there will be more Palestinians than Jews living in Israel and the occupied territories. Then Israel will have three options: The Israelis will control this whole area by apartheid, or they will control it by expelling Palestinians, or they will grant Palestinians the right to vote and it will no longer be a Jewish state. Whichever way it goes, it will mean the end of Israel as a Jewish democracy.

Friedman seems to be coming out in favor of unilateral separation as a last resort, even if the Palestinians won't make a reasonable agreement (hardly a crazy scenario). But won't that essentially entail some of the same things as Friedman's parade of horribles? Building and policing a really good border, keeping a seething Palestinian population out of Israel, etc. will entail some pretty nasty things - possibly including expelling some Palestinians from their current homes. Surely that would be seen, by Friedman as well as the rest of the world, as the equal of the "transfer" hatefully advocated by Israel's current extreme right-wingers. (I'm not getting into the question of whether expelling the Palestinians could conceivably be compatible with Israel's democratic character - just pointing out that "separating" doesn't make the question go away.)