-since when? for the longest time he supported the bantustan solution
Since forever; have you read his book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, where he was very critical of Israeli's policies throughout? I don't agree with his approach to the issues, since he is too pro-Israel overall and blames Arafat more than the Israelis for the breakdown of the Oslo process, but his basic analysis has condemned the settlements for years and he supports most of the Palestinians demands, even if he doesn't like Arafat's approach to the negotiations.
Friedman does not support a bantustan solution but has clearly said the Palestinians need a real viable state encompassing the full West Bank & Gaza (athough he supports some land being transferred from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for some of the Jersualem suburbs that now extend into the West Bank). But here is what he said in a column last year (august 24, 2001)
"No one can criticize Israel for retaliating in the harshest manner for suicide bombs in restaurants; no country in the world would behave otherwise. But the idea that there is a tipping point, where enough military pressure on the Palestinians will get them to say "uncle" and willingly accept some mini-mini-state in the West Bank, is utter fantasy. Five million Jews cannot sustain a military solution against five million Palestinians and 95 million Arabs. If Israel keeps all the settlements and the Arab areas around them, demographically it will become an apartheid state or a non-Jewish state...If Israel uprooted only some settlements and put up a wall, it would leave behind a chopped-up Palestinian mini-state that would be totally non-viable."
Friedman's distrust of Arafat means that he thinks there should be a transition period where peacekeeping troops from outside police the region, protecting Palestinians from Israel and preventing suicide bombers from attacking Israel. It may not be the right solution, but it is not a bantustan solution either.
-- Nathan Newman