>>64236150
The overlooked factor about the West Bank is that in any other conflict with any other combatants, UN Resolutions requiring ceding territory won in a defensive campaign (and yes, '67 was defensive, unless previously hostile sovereign countries amassing troops and armor along your border or the Jordanian military invading a neutral zone and firing at civilian areas is not hostile) would never occur.
Note Res 242's rhetoric: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."
Almost immediately followed by a demand to cede all territory acquired, but also "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Security at the assurance of previously hostile Muslim countries who call the Oslo Accords the "Hudna Accords" (Hudna = temporary treaty) isn't actually security. It's merely a front to bide their time, amass more resources, and try again. 1973 proved that, even if Jordanian involvement was piecemeal so that King Hussein could save face. The Green Line (pre-1967 borders) is strategically indefensible, and the fact that there have been Qassam's fired from the West Bank indicates that the area remains a threat.
Regardless of the legitimacy of those settlements, they cost Israel more legal credibility in the eyes of the international community they they're worth and ensuring the security of their inhabitants is probably more costly than simply settling those people elsewhere.