Okay, but given that the ’49 armistice was the result of an actual war, the lines can’t have been all that indefensible. What’s more, the lines were successfully defending in 1967. And Israel’s conventional military superiority vis-a-vis its neighbors has grown larger. And now Israel has nuclear weapons! What’s more, Israel now has peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt. If non-nuclear Israel could defend the ’67 borders against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria combined surely it can defend them now against Syria alone with the help of its nuclear weapons.
I wonder what Stern’s counter-proposal would be. Basically every left-leaning and moderate observer supports a two-state solution, with Israel having roughly pre-1967 borders and some compromise on settlements and right-of-return. People like Stern, Marty Peretz, etc. all critique this ad nauseum, but never say what they want to happen. Do they, like Daniel Pipes, just want the Palestinians to leave (voluntarily, of course)? Do they support Avigor Lieberman’s overtly racist Arab-Israeli expulsion plan? Because as it stands, with one side having a very clear stated position and the other responding with incoherent critiques and no real alternatives, there isn’t any possibility for a real argument.