A donkey looks at its rider with sad eyes and asks: "Is this journey really necessary?" This was a poster distributed by the British Government of Palestine during World War 2, to stimulate the saving of petrol.

I feel like this donkey when I ask the Prime Minister: Was all this fuss about the Wye agreement really necessary? I know what we lost, but I do not know what we gained by it.

Barak lost something priceless. His election caused much joy and hope among the Palestinians, and the Arabs in general. It was like a whiff of fresh air. After three years of sabotage and cheating by Netanyahu, here, they believed, is a new man who promises to move towards peace.

During the last month, the hope was dashed and the joy disappeared. Barak looked more and more like an improved model of Netanyahu. (Disappointed Israelis in Jerusalem displayed a sticker with the poignant message "The same Kharah - only without Sarah". Khara is the equivalent of "shit".)

The peculiar style of Barak -- composed of arm-twisting and ultimatums -- has destroyed the trust on the Palestinian side. The climate of confrontation has come back: One side has to lose so the other side can win. That's not an atmosphere conducive to peace.

That's the loss. So what's the gain? It's hard to see.

The Israeli withdrawal has been postponed for some weeks. What for? Only someone who does not really want to fulfil this obligation, and is just waiting for some pretext to break it, such as an outbreak of desperation and violence, can want a postponement. Barak's did not succeed to tie the withdrawal to the permanent status negotiations. But he has said that before the withdrawal will take place, he will see whether sufficient progress on the permanent status track has been made. This is an implied threat: If the Palestinians do not accept the Barak diktat regarding the final settlement, even this tiny withdrawal will not take place.

Israel will release only 350 prisoners, instead of the 400 demanded by the Palestinians. Is this good? Those right-wing Israelis who shout "they have blood on their hands" will shout anyway. On the Palestinian side, the party has been spoiled. The release of the 300 prisoners ("freedom fighters" for all Palestinians, "terrorists" for most Israelis) will not be perceived by the Palestinians as an Israeli act of goodwill, but rather as an Israeli bowing to pressure. The thought about the prisoners who continue to languish in prison will poison the atmosphere in spite of the agreement. Is this wise?

Barak has insisted on a timetable, according to which an agreement on the framework of the final settlement must be achieved until February 2000, and the final settlement until September. Where is the gain? The Palestinians, more than the Israelis, want a quick solution. There is no need to push them. But no timetable will compel the Palestinians to accept conditions against their will. As the Israeli poet Alterman once wrote (about ourselves): "A people does not retreat from the trenches of its life". Either we reach a fair compromise with which both peoples can live, or not.

According to the agreement, the Palestinians will not declare the creation of their state within one year. They would not have done so anyhow, as long as there is a chance of achieving an agreed solution. The Americans have promised that the Barak government will not set up settlements, demolish houses, confiscate land and build by-pass roads. Barak could have promised that even without the visit of the old lady.

It follows that the whole exercise was quite superfluous. Barak could have found a better way to open the new page and to prove that things have changed. It is a pity that he has surrounded himself with a group of former Mossad agents, Shabak officers and military governors. These people would not know what peace is if it had been handed to them on a platter.

Yet after all, one has to welcome this agreement. All in all, things are moving ahead, and every such movement is good. The Palestinians will get more territory. More prisoners are being released. There is a clear obligation to stop the creeping expansion of the settlements. And most importantly: it is now perfectly clear that the permanent solution will lead to the setting up of the State of Palestine side by side with the State of Israel, and there is a reasonable chance that this will happen next year. Slowly byt steadily, the Arafat policy pays off. The new sea-port and the opening of the safe passage will bring change in the daily life of the Palestinian population..

On the Israeli side too, the agreement will bring blessings. The feeling that things are on the move will encourage the economy and increase foreign investments. The Americans will give a big baksheesh.

Now, tough negotiations will begin. Barak and his people will try to shackle the Palestinian State in the name of security and bind it with iron chains to the Israeli economy. They will try to tear away big chunks of territory for "settlement blocs".

But the same logic that was at work during the last few days will dominate the whole process. The world wants peace, most Palestinians want peace, most Israelis want peace, and, in the final test, even Barak wants peace. So it's a pity to waste time.