Here is an interesting post (link) from Treppenwitz. I don't agree with it all. However, here is the bit I liked:
When most people today say "the '67 borders" in relation to territorial compromise, they are talking about the borders that existed on June 5th, 1967... which were, in fact, the 1949 Armistice lines.... Israel's de facto borders at the end of the War of Independence.
But since a return to the 1949 borders - even a modified version - would be tantamount to admitting that every war fought since (and every Israeli killed in 60 years of Arab aggression) was for naught, you will almost never hear that phrase used in the news.
...It's really no surprise that the left-leaning media and the Olmert government are very careful to only talk about returning to "the '67 borders". How else can one consider giving a do-over on not one, but three major wars (and six decades of Arab intransigence)... in return for nothing more than vague promises to recognize our right to exist. Sort of.
Funny how just changing the terms with which a topic is discussed can change one's entire perception. Basically, when the product you are selling stinks, the best strategy is to make sure it is packaged nicely. And let's face it... calling for a return to relatively modern borders sounds a heck of a lot nicer than a retreat to indefensible borders that existed at the end of our War of Independence! Yet, without saying as much, it is the latter that everyone seems to be talking about today.