Al quds: The decision last month by Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction and long- range missiles will have enhanced the sense among Israeli leaders that their regional strategic position, already improved by the toppling of Saddam Hussein, was far better at the start of 2004 than it had been at the start of the previous year.

But any rejoicing will have been shortlived, as Israeli decision-makers quickly began to understand that the decision by the flamboyant Libyan leader had suddenly reopened the discussion on monitoring of non-conventional weapons in the Middle East. This cast an uncomfortable spotlight on the Jewish state's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal, which no Israeli government has ever officially acknowledged.

In the wake of Qadhafi's announcement, as well as Iran's declared willingness to accept nuclear inspections, both Egypt and Syria have recently called on Israel to give up the bomb.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, now facing threats of US sanctions similar to those encountered by Qadhafi, repeated that call on a trip to Turkey earlier this week.

Qadhafi made specific mention of Israel after his shock pronouncement. He reasoned that if other countries in the region followed his example, pressure would grow on Israel to follow suit. "This would tighten the noose around the Israelis so that they would expose their programmes and their weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Following Iran's declaration, and possibly knowing that a Libyan deal was in the works, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed ElBaradei called on Israel last month to give up its nuclear weapons as part of a regional peace agreement.

ElBaradei suggested Israel was fueling a WMD race in the Middle East. He said he feared a situation in which "there will be continued incentive for the region's countries to develop weapons of mass destruction to match the Israeli arsenal."

Arab League chief Amr Moussa sounded a similar note on Wednesday, saying that Israel's possession of WMDs would "perhaps" lead other countries in the region to try "to protect themselves against such weapons."

Despite the diplomatic heat, Israel is not about to alter its decades-old policy of "nuclear ambiguity". It neither admits to, nor denies, having nuclear weapons - and the United States is not about to force it to do so. Israel continues to view nuclear deterrence, even if undeclared, as the ultimate guarantee of its survival in a hostile neighbourhood.

But that does not mean the changing nuclear climate has gone unnoticed in the Israeli Foreign Ministry or the defence establishment. Officials are considering the question whether Israel should agree to monitoring of its own free will sometime down the line, or wait until outside pressures become irresistible.

There has been speculation in the wake of Libya's move that Israel might consider ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) if other countries in the region do the same. But the longstanding position of countries like Egypt and Syria, both believed to have chemical weapons, is that they will not sign the CWC until Israel signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Prof. Efraim Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies near Tel Aviv is unconcerned by the greater scrutiny of Israel that Qadhafi's decision has spawned. He views Libya's move as a positive development. "It's good news," he told IPS. "It removes a threat (to Israel)."

Inbar, who supports the 'ambiguity' policy, is less enthusiastic about Iran's acceptance of nuclear inspections. "They might adopt the talk-and-build strategy of North Korea," he says.

With no prospects of regional peace on the horizon, the one party that could force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons is the United States. But US officials speaking anonymously have told Israeli media in recent days that Washington is not about to lean on its key Mideast ally.-Dawn/The InterPress News Service.