In order objectively to analyse to where the negotiations are leading, we should evaluate our progress through this "dark tunnel" on the following levels.

Phase of negotiations Negotiations started immediately after the Gulf War and continue with no clear time limit. The agenda was clear from James Baker's first meetings in Jerusalem. It is important to review the written and oral memoranda of that time, the various opinions in Jerusalem and Tunis and the impact of forming the delegation and going to Madrid. We were considered the vanquished party in a state of siege and the consensus was to escape from that state. We should recall who influenced the decision to attend and who opposed it, and their respective impact on the community.

Negotiators Other parties to the negotiations formed delegations of technical experts and consultants. Employed by their governments, they were expected to carry out instructions, with no significant gap between their capitals' decisions and judgement and understanding at their end. In our case, we require negotiators from three categories: representatives of a national movement, representatives of a political leadership (the PLO), and employees or supporters. The gap between these groups, their priorities, interests and visions, and between inside and outside, has become steadily wider. However, we have started a painful process of self-criticism, not only on the question of the delegation, its composition and duties, but on our political agenda.

Substance of negotiations In the beginning, Baker's statements and Bush's speech to Congress of 6 March 1991 constituted the U.S. formula: land for peace and implementation of Resolutions 242 and 338. Israel's agenda was based on the old autonomy plan of Begin, plus normalisation of relations with the Arab world. Our terms centred on an independent Palestinian state. Without an agenda for a transitional period, we faced the "two tracks" equipped with tactics but no strategy.

Influences on negotiations Currently, we are confronted by the Israeli "iron fist" policy, and their attempts to drown us in a sea of daily preoccupations, on top of the incessant difficulties facing our people during the intifada. Add to this our present position in the Arab world, and I believe we face a real crisis. One further problem is the Palestinian disease of "the chief". We see this title attached to most members of our delegation and its spokespersons: the "head" of the delegation, of the advisors, the "chief" of the technical committees, of the coordinating body, and so on.

Issues on the Palestinian agenda Previously, our position was based on a two-state solution. We are talking now about a transitional period wherein we move from a state of occupation to an "interim arrangement". Israel terms it personal autonomy under Israeli sovereignty. The U.S. calls it "self-rule" with a division of territory and sovereignty. The Arab scenario is dual citizenship (Jordanian-Palestinian) as a step towards a confederation. We in the Occupied Territories see the transitional period as a temporary phase during which we exercise national authority to lead us to freedom and independence in the future state. The problem is to find common elements in these scenarios and to convince Palestinians that a transitional phase will not jeopardise our priniciples or national aspirations.