THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE Committee's honoring of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was at best premature, and at worst an admission of the shallowness of the award itself. Though both heads of state should be commended for their long-awaited search for peace, the negotiated Camp David framework still leaves the future stability of the Middle East uncertain. There is no doubt that in taking the peace initiative and in alienating himself from the rest of the Arab community, Sadat took a courageous step. Similarly, Begin's receptiveness deserves recognition. But the Nobel Peace Prize should not be used merely to encourage future peace efforts. Nor should it commend individuals whose search for peace is ancillary to the more pressing short-term goals.

Neither Sadat nor Begin has yet demonstrated a long-term commitment to resolving the problems in the Middle East. Nor do the agreements thus far reached indicate a settlement for the Middle East as a whole. Begin--in his insistence on retaining Israeli settlements on the West Bank--has already shown that the framework for peace only established the modalities for achieving a lasting solution to the tension in the Middle East.

THE NOBEL COMMITTEE'S award to Kissinger and Duc Tho in 1973 in like fashion prematurely honored a short-term settlement, reached for the exigencies of the moment--namely, the American desire for withdrawal. Perhaps the Nobel Committee should reevaluate the difference between short-term diplomacy and long-term commitment to human justice and lasting peace in the spirit of Steve Biko.