First watch this from 17.27 till the end of the question 20.45 or better the whole clip (30 minutes but it is not boring)
Its pretty hard to define internationalism based liberalism but in general it would be something like an individual holding a notion that he owns loyalty to a collection of people that transcends statehood.(Loyalty to the EU, World, any other larger than state entities). Friedman considers this a fantasy because he defines internationalism with the same lines as nationalism. That this loyalty to a group, tribe, family,nation grows out of your local community, culture, language for example. So in a sense nationalism is a pre-requisite of a proper working democracy that lets the said group, tribe, family, nation have similar goals, needs and move forward as a group in 1 direction. So since our cultures, languages, communities are different even within Europe then that means that we probably will have diverging directions that we would want to move so basically it is not a functioning system.
The problem with that interpretation in my opinion is that it misses one key factor: internationalism based liberalism actually exists. And a lot of people actually practice it in Europe and also in the US. So it must bring something to those people so it wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if you consider it to be on the same level as Religion for example then religion also brings something to people lives, for example, morals. So in a sense there must be a rational line of thought behind it.
So my idea on this is that he is missing a key factor that actually defines our loyalty to something. I would say it would still be the same things as language, culture, community but I would also add technology here. In a sense technology defines our behaviour as much as the other mentioned categories. As an example we can bring Farming/Agriculture. Once it was discovered people started moving from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled one. And i don't see how other technologies can't have similar impacts. If we take the internet, mass media, social media etc in account especially for the people born after 2000s than it compromises a significant part of their lives compared to the pre-2000s. So the sense of culture, community have definitely been expanded to include much more than just our local cultures and our local communities. Language is a tougher question though. In Europe most people are speak multiple languages (Well basically their own + English).
So perhaps internationalism based liberalism is just the same nationalism based liberalism that is going a metamorphosis due to technological advancement. I don't really think its a fully formed ideology or system as of yet but it seems to be heading that way. For example, the question of intolerance of the "Wrong way". (For example Italians electing the alt-right/left coalition and "OMG" cries of the EU or polish and hungarian situations). In a sense we try to judge those countries using our local community/cultural standards while being a citizen of a larger entity than your local country state.
May be even the whole dispute of globalism vs alt-right is a by product of this process. Alt-right/right see the intolerance factor for their ideological world view since they are closer to nationalism based liberalism while the SJW/left are more internationalism based and can't really properly tolerate a divergence from the "Correct" path. So in a sense this dispute is a process that arose in liberalism because of technological development. Its a process that is ingrained in to us due to how we live our daily lives and it is inescapable even perhaps.
Pretty hard to define everything here. Please don't do copy/paste from insert X philosopher/statesmen here and write your own thoughts.
I do not think that any nation is hopeless to change; however, I think that some nations do require a lot more effort than others to become changed. - Verv