The question of Israel's nuclear status is still a major elementrelations with Egypt, and the issue was raised again in last week's summit. Despite Foreign Minister Peres' earlier claims that a was close, and reports of Israeli gestures on this issue, meeting ended without a any sign of change in the policies ofcountry.

The immediate source of this dispute is the approach of the that will decide on the extension of the NuclearProliferation Treaty. This conference will begin in April 1995 inYork, where delegates from the 167 countries which are parties to 1970 NPT will meet. Article X of the NPT calls for a conference 25 years to "decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or". If the majority of the participants vote to extend the NPT, indefinitely or for a limited period, the decision will be on all the current NPT signatories (even those, such Egypt,are expected to vote against extension).

For 25 years, Israel has rejected pressure to sign this, in part because the nuclear deterrent is seen as essential guarantee survival and, in part, because the NPT has failed toproliferation in Iraq, and, it is now feared, Iran. If Israel the NPT, as demanded by Egypt, it would be giving up itsdeterrent, and in a few years, would have no response to the and revived Iraqi nuclear capabilities. In addition, Israel needs to deter the threats posed by Egyptian and Syrian forces, are equipped with thousands of modern tanks, combat aircraft,, and chemical weapons.

Nevertheless, Jerusalem is coming under tremendous pressure toits policy and sign the NPT, or to at least take some steps in direction in the build-up to the 1995 conference. Most of the comes from Cairo, which has seized this issue as a politicalby which to reassert its role as the leader of the Arab world,as a means of removing Israel's deterrent option and restoring the and Arab military superiority. Egypt is also attempting to the support of other Arab, Islamic, and non-aligned states incampaign. If they succeed, and a majority of states vote against or long term extension of the NPT at the 1995 conference, will severely weaken or even destroy the NPT and thenon-proliferation regime.

This poses a dilemma for Israel, since, despite the limitations the NPT, Israel has strategic and political interests in theextension of this international agreement. In contrast to failure in Iraq, the nuclear non-proliferation regime has the spread of nuclear weapons to Egypt, Syria, Libya, and countries in the Middle East. In a broader sense, the is an important element in international order and stability. A of many nuclear powers would be highly unstable, and would the ability of the United States to intervene in regional, including the Middle East. The NPT is a key element inforeign and defense policy, and as Washington's major Middle ally, Israel is under pressure from the US to make someof support towards the indefinite extension of the NPT.

In the effort to resolve this dilemma, Israel has declared itsto discuss arrangements in a regional context, such as the Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. This would require participation of all the states in the region, including Syria, and Iraq, and would supplement existing safeguards with special designed for the Middle East. These proposals are being in the multilateral Arms Control and Regional Security(ACRS) talks that began after the 1991 Madrid conference. Iran, Iraq,, an Libya are boycotting these talks, but a framework for futureis being developed, in the hope that political changes in thesewill also lead to policy changes.

Limitations on the acquisition of conventional weapons by Arab are also necessary components of any regional arms control. Any Israeli gestures on the nuclear issue must be accompanied limits on Egyptian and Syrian conventional forces. Egypt faces no threats, keeps two-thirds of its forces just outside thedemilitarized zone, and continues to augment its army with F-16 and modern American M-1 Abrams tanks, now being manufactured Egypt. While pressuring Israel for concessions, Egypt should beto diffuse this threat.

The combination of regional limits on weapon of mass destruction(including of course, nuclear weapons), linked to agreements on the of conventional weapons provide the best hope for resolution the Israeli NPT dilemma. Together, these will meet the security of both Israel and Egypt. However, without both, attempts to force Israel's hand will damage the Middle Eastprocess, and will not help the NPT.