[self_evident]

Because the Iraeli army is committed to protect them? I'm not a Palistinian supporter, you can check my history. But the idea that there can be an independent Palistinian nation with enclaves that the Israeli's are committed to defend is absurd. Boundries have to mean something.

Would we tolerate Mexican enclaves that the Mexican govt. regularly sent troops to defend?

Of course if we could expect a civalized nation of Palistine, then we would expect the Pali govt. to protect them. But we all know the liklihood of that.

[cicero's_son]

Right, but if there is ultimately an exchange of "land for peace" then the Israeli army's obligation to defend the settlers would presumaby pass on to the Palestinian civil authorities.

Or are Arab civil authorities constitutionally incapable of protecting Jewish minorities?

[GeronL]

There has never been and never will be a Palestinian State