So Rev. 20 is pretty much the big deal then, yet it's still not hard to understand I don't think from a non-premill view.
Because 'we' interpret it by using the analogy of Scripture rule. That is, we use the plain and clear statements of Scripture to interpet the obscure parts. Using apocalyptic to interpret the plain amounts to deciding a priori what the apocalyptic means, then trying to make everything else fit into it. That is a patently ludicrous way to proceed, and by definition is bound to yield a false result.
Arguably, it's the MO of every false system of belief that has ever been devised by the wit of man. Begs an interesting question though, doesn't it? Would chiliasts still interpret Ez. 38-48 or Zech. 14, for example, literally w/out the benefit of Rev. 20:1-10 'hindsight'? Personally, I doubt it, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion.
but we will still have all that with our view........
True, but without a kinda 'transition' period between now and eternity, you remove any possibility of a literal fulfillment of the OT promises to national Israel. They are more than happy to settle for second best for 1,000 years coz of the spectacle it offers to the world. The fact that it all ends in a fiasco yet again merely proves fallen humanity's implacable hatred for and opposition to theocratic government, even when implemented under the most benign conditions.
It's an unsavory picture of what is supposed to be Earth's golden age, but despite all that, I can still see how it appeals to our baser desires and instincts. That doesn't mean I approve, let alone believe it has any foundation in Holy Writ.