What can account for the tempest over Mrs. Clinton's remark? As she herself recently observed, her assessment was based on her discussions with Yitzhak Rabin. It is an assessment she shares with Shimon Peres, with Yossi Beilin, with Ariel Sharon (yes, Ariel Sharon), and, mirabile dictu, with a majority of Israel's voters. All these apparently recognize that it will be much easier for Israel to deal with a Palestinian state than with an amorphous "Palestine Authority." All these apparently realize that the half-loaf of "autonomy" is a breeding ground for discontent. And all these apparently realize one more thing: A Palestinian "mini-state" - for what is contemplated I, in truth, less than a fully independent state - presents no serious security threat to Israel. The grave threat to Israel these days comes from faraway Iraq and Iran and their putative capacity and willingness to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel. The Palestinian threat is very different. It is the threat of a resumption of low-level warfare, the kind of warfare that, as the Intifadeh showed, Israel cannot win. And statehood reduces that threat.

A friend suggests that American Jews live in a fantasy world, a world in which the Palestinians are wished away, much the same as people involved in a divorce often wish away their soon-to-be former spouse. Poof, and the irritant simply disappears.

My friend is mistaken. A majority of America's Jews, the polls show, understand exactly what a majority of Israelis understand: Sooner or later, there will be a Palestinian state. One can raise all the obvious questions - most obviously, the question of why the Palestinians "deserve" a state and the Kurds, say, do not, nor the Albanians in Kosovo, and so on around the world - but the issue here is not morality or logic. The issue is the practical question of Israel's safety. The open question is not whether there will be an independent Palestinian state, but the circumstances under which it will come into existence. Will it be militarily hedged in, established with due regard for Israel's security, or will Israel, by its continuing blindness, forfeit the right to insist on that regard?

But if most American Jews understand these things, what explains the reaction to Mrs. Clinton, who has not gone beyond their understanding?

Two possibilities: The first is that some number of Jews - not all that many, but enough to make a difference in a close election - are not part of the Jewish majority. They are hard-liners who might be disposed to vote for a Democrat but whose fears for Israel's safety prevent them from voting for anyone who deviates from Israeli government policy. And the second is that Jews permit themselves more dovish views than they permit their political leaders. We know, after all, where the red lines are; we trust ourselves to look out for Israel's safety. But we want our political leaders to be to our right, for we do not trust them.

All this presents a major challenge to Jewish leadership, one it is alas not likely to meet. Real leadership would involve telling America's Jews that endorsement of a Palestinian state does not place someone outside the pro-Israel camp. What we are likely to hear from our leaders instead, however, is that they have met with Mrs. Clinton and have demanded from her a retraction. Quite possibly, she will accede to their demand; there have already been hints of that. Our leaders know better; Mrs. Clinton knows better; the Jews themselves know better. But we love a charade. And so welcome to silly season, in an arena where such seasons more quickly from silly to absurd and from absurd to revolting.