Five minutes after the beginning of the premiere of a play, a famous critic got up and left the theater. Next day he published a blistering review. "That's not fair," he was told, "You should have seen the whole performance before judging it."

"No," replied the critic, "I don't have to eat the whole egg in order to know that it stinks."

Perhaps it ain't fair to judge Ehud Barak after only eight months. He has still got nearly four years in office. Perhaps he will do wonders. Perhaps. But I believe that eight months are quite enough to make a judgement.

All the checks he signed before taking office have been returned by the bank. Bad checks, all of them.

On the Palestinian track, things have not moved forward by an inch. Barak's tactics vacillate between total disregard and futile efforts to impose things by force. "Target dates" have come and passed. The sole achievement, the opening of one "safe passage" after a delay of years, is largely a sham. The enlargement of the settlements and the confiscation of Palestinian lands go on at a tempo that shames Netanyahu.

On the Syrian track, things have returned to square one. Both sides have reverted to a war-like style. The door is closed and Barak has thrown away the key - a declaration of Israel's readiness to return the whole Golan heights.

In Lebanon as in Lebanon. Barak repeats all the military methods that have so miserably failed under his predecessors, from Shamir to Netanyahu. He promised to pull the soldiers out of the trap, sometimes "by agreement" and sometimes without. Why is the withdrawal possible on July 7, the anniversary of his coming to power, and not now? God knows.

In the social area, not a single one of his promises has been met. Nothing has happened. Nothing at all.

When I voted for Barak (and publicly called on others to vote for him) he looked like a strong, energetic leader, who knows what he wants and is able to get it. I knew, of course, that there is a big gap between his ideas and mine, but it seemed that, at least, he would take a big step forwards. The main disappointment is exactly on this point: he appears to be a weak person, unable to make clear decisions and to stick to them. He lacks the moral courage of a real leader.

Interestingly enough, the attributes he talks about most - "determination", "leadership" - are the most conspicuous by their absence in his character. It seems that his exaggerated fist-shaking expresses a faulty self-confidence. An example: Harry Truman, a small haberdasher who became president nearly by accident, dismissed the national hero, General McArthur, when he publicly demanded to use the atomic bomb in the Korean war. The famous general was kicked out on the spot. General Mofaz, who is not a McArthur, remains Chief-of-Staff after he publicly demanded that the Cabinet decide to escalate the lost war in Lebanon. Barak did not dare to touch him.

When Barak came to power, he was certain that he had all the answers. He knew exactly what was good for the Syrians and the Palestinians, and also for the jobless and the sick old woman lying in a hospital corridor. It appears, however, that his answers were far removed from reality. He does not understand the Syrians. He does not understand, and does not want to understand, the Palestinians. He lives in a different world than the unemployed. The generals/advisors, who surround him like an iron wall, understand even less.

A great question is: Where are the "doves" who joined his government? The small National-Religious (Mafdal) faction exerts immense pressure within the coalition. The settlers dominate the government. But the Meretz ministers and the Labor "doves" are in hiding. Well, they do raise their hands against fatal government decisions, but they know full well that this is but a futile gesture. They vote and return to their comfortable offices.

They say that there is no substitute for Barak, and that, therefore, it is wrong to bring down the government. That is true. But what hinders them from exerting their blackmail-power inside the government, in order to change the situation? Their default may lead to historical disaster.

President Clinton, too, could exert real pressure, but is satisfied with nice words. I don't accept the opinion of many Arabs, who believe that Clinton is helpless because all the official dealing with the Middle East, from secretary Albright to the ambassador in Tel-Aviv, are Jewish. The truth is that Clinton, much like Barak, suffers from an inner weakness. There is a vast gap between his abilities and his ardent wish to secure for himself a place in history. Shalom, Haver.

Perhaps all this will change as Barak's term in office moves on. Let's hope so. I, at any case, contrary to that famous critic, shall stay until the end of the performance. What alternative do I have?