I think this may be about more than just "recognition" for it's own sake so to speak. I'm thinking that possibly the thinking behind closed doors may be that recognition might make inserting an "international force/presence" an easier thing to get through the UN. Similar to the scenario in the Sinai which for the most part has gone OK. The West Bank situation cannot keep going on because it is a building powder keg. I don't believe that the situation there can resolve by continued involvement by the armed radicals of the groups like Hamas, Hezbollah etc. and by the continued presence of Israel. Either one is a match to the powder keg in the eyes of the other. But trying to get approval for a Sinai type force just as a substitute for the sides alone will not be likely to be seen as anything but another "occupier" unless it is done in conjunction with a concurrent move that gives the people there a reason to accept that "international force/presence" as protecting their "state" and allowing them to have a voice in matters free from fear of retaliation or intimidation that allows the corrupt leaders to be gone and new leaders to discuss the resolution of borders, natural resources etc.
Although the Sinai situation with Egypt has differences obviously to the West Bank situation I haven't seen any articles that Israel is unhappy or dissatisfied with the "international force" approach there. I think at this point we have to try something different because I think we all see the unlikely success of maintaining the approach in the West Bank by any of the parties involved. It just isn't working.