To summarize that article: all talk of 1967 borders is pointless until we realize that the conflict started in 1948, long before Israel had conquered the West Bank. Returning to the pre-1967 state of affairs won't bring peace, because there wasn't peace during pre-1967 in the first place.
The article is correct, but everything it says is banal, self-evident, and obvious. On the other hand, the world at large is still hopelessly ignorant of these most banal, self-evident, and obvious facts.
Regarding the 1967 borders, however, I'd like to add something, however, quoting what I wrote here:
The truth is, the boundaries of the West Bank are entirely arbitrary. There is no geographic, political, or demographic logic to those borders; they are simply where the fighting stopped between Israel and Jordan. Since then, the Palestinians, with no discernable logic that conforms to conventional canons of human reasoning, have claimed that these armistice lines have special cultural and demographic value. The fact is, the Palestinians could just as well claim - with equal basis - that any other territory in Israel belongs to them. What if they suddenly claim that Tel Aviv is Palestinian as well? (Actually, they already claim this.) Would Tel Aviv becomes theirs as well? Would Tel Aviv-ian Israelis also be "... us[ing] Palestinian natural resources..."?
Also, Fishman notes (to pastiche this and this) that
[I]t is wonderous[ly] strange, but during the 19 years of Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of the Palestinians (1948-1967) no-one seemed to be burning with the flame of Palestinian nationalism. Either they felt that the Arab occupation is legitimate, or the occupiers were ruthless.....makes one think.
I think that in explaining the lack of a Palestinian national movement in Arab occupied Gaza and West bank one has two choices: Either one regards the Palestinian Arabs as a distinct culture which is existentially threatened by other Arab cultures, in which case the absence of Palestinian nationalism under the Jordan/Egypt occupation can be seen as a result of succesful supression by the Arab occupiers (so succesful that no evidence of Palestinian rebelion ever leaked out), or one considers them to be a part of a homogenious Arabian heritage,with only minor differences in traditions; in which case the lack of nationalist sentiment can be attributed to Palestinian recognition of the Arab occuption's legitimacy.
Whatever choice...[one]...makes, ...[the] argument [in favor of Palestinian nationalism] is evicerated. Either the Arab occupiers are to be blamed for perpetuating the Palestinian's homelessness and dismal condition after 1948, or the Palestinians have bought into a pan-Arab movement to destroy Israel.