Takeo makes a good point regarding the security of Israel if a Palistinian state were allowed. Namely, he included a foreign military presence. I'll assume he was refering to a U.N. lead peace keeping force.
Why does Israel reject the notion of a peace keeping force in the region? I know there are talks of allowing CIA monitors (which I think is a HORRIBLE idea), but why not a U.N. force there to provide a substantive defense of Israel, so it no longer has the need to hold the land? It seems to me that Israel would get all the security benefits without having to face the world criticism and economic hardships that keeping their own force there causes. Also, it would take away a great deal of the terrorist arguement for hostility against Israel.
So I ask again, what is the Israeli reasoning for not allowing a large U.N. peacekeeping force in the occupied territory?