When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress last week, he was received with adulation from both sides of the aisle.

However, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of the recently revised “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” wasn’t all that impressed with the Israeli prime minister’s reception. He explained on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” that while there currently exists a strong bond between the United States and Israel, if Israel doesn’t give up the West Bank to the Palestinians, it will become “Jewish apartheid.”

“It’s because we see them like us.  We see them as a country that shares our — our values,” Friedman said. “And, most importantly, we see — we see Israel as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.  That’s Israel’s greatest strategic strength vis-a-vis the United States.  And what, you know, those of us who have been critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu on this issue are basically saying is that’s precisely what is imperiled if there is no peace agreement that allows Israel to cede the West Bank to a Palestinian authority in a safe and secure way so it doesn’t absorb all those Palestinians, so we don’t end up with a situation where a Jewish minority is ruling over an Arab majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. We know where that goes. That’s called Jewish apartheid.”

And according to The New York Times columnist, that’s what Israel’s enemies want because it delegitimatizes Israel as a nation.

“That — that would be the biggest strategic threat to Israel,” he said. “And the way you know that is if you look at the strategy of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.  What is their strategy?  It is to make sure Israel must never leave the West Bank.  OK?  Because as long as Israel’s there, that is the key to their strategy for globally delegitimizing Israel.  Why play into that strength?”

However, Zakaria pointed out the 28-29 standing ovations Netanyahu received during his speech to Congress. Friedman said that didn’t impress him.

“Well, you know, there’s a parallel between what the Palestinians could get at the U.N. and what the Israelis can get in Congress,” Friedman said. “They can both stand up and read the phone book and be assured that a bunch of knuckleheads in the audience will stand and give them a standing ovation.”

Watch:

But according to Friedman, Netanyahu could also have gotten a well-deserved ovation had he gone along with President Barack Obama’s Israel-Palestinian peace proposals.

“'[M]r. President, yes.  You want a six-month moratorium on settlement building?’” he said, describing what he believes Netanyahu should have said. “’I’ve already got 500,000 settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank.  You know what, Mr. President?  That’s not really a strategic risk for me.  The potential payoff of that is so great, I don’t believe it. I’m skeptical. But when you, President Obama, ask me that, there’s only one right answer.  Yes, sir. We will do that. Barack Obama, this Bud’s for you.’ Then he would have gotten a standing ovation that would have not just included the U.S. Congress, it would have included Europeans. It would have included Arabs. It would have included people all over America. Said hey, there’s a guy who’s going the extra mile. And that’s my point, Fareed. I have no idea whether there is a Palestinian partner for a secure peace with Israel, along the lines that President Clinton has laid out. I just know one thing. Given the implications for Israel, if it gets stuck permanently holding the West Bank, it is in Israel’s overwhelming interest to test, test and test again, OK?  Because that would be a huge strategic threat to Israel if it has no choice but to absorb the West Bank.”

Later in his appearance, Friedman suggested that while Netanyahu may have gotten a warm reception in front of Congress, he might not have gotten the same reception had he given his speech in front of university student governments, which he said were composed of future American leaders.

“You know, as far as American Jews, you know — you know, to me, the question, Fareed, is yes, Bibi Netanyahu, because of political reasons and campaign donations and AIPAC’s influence, can get standing ovations in the U.S. Congress anytime they want, seven days a week, 24/7. How many standing ovations do you think he could get at the student government at the University of Missouri? At Stanford? At Harvard? At the University of Virginia? At the University of Texas? If you went to those student governments, they’re the future.  They’re the future of voters. They’re the future people who will maintain the strategic relationship with Israel. And there, I can tell you, as anyone who goes to college campuses knows, that people don’t get Israel, what Israel is doing right now. They — some are alienated.  Some — more — and this is a bigger part, more just — you know, I don’t know.  It’s messy. I don’t want to get involved in this at all.”