Friedman would have a tough time continuing to write about his pet peeve - the "radical settlers".
Friedman hasn't been to a "settlement" in years, has probably never set foot in Jerusalem's Gilo and Ramot neighborhoods (settlements that have to be destroyed, according to his definition) to see the "radical settlers" there.
Out here in the high hills of Judea, nobody recalls seeing Friedman out here to interview us "radical settlers".
So that's why Friedman wasn't there with the high mucky mucks from the NYT - it would give him facts that contradict his world view.
So Friedman will continue to foam at the mouth every time he talks about "the radical settlers", and will have a hard time explaining just what percentage of "settlers" are "radical", simply because he doesn't know and apparently doesn't care.