In Ben Rose’s Sept. 2 response to my Aug. 25 essay, he neatly dodged the two key questions I raised.

First, shouldn’t Israel be required, as our loyal ally in the Mideast, to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Obtaining world support of that treaty has been the policy of the United States and its European allies since before the 1967 war. The question is posed against the known Israeli nuclear arsenal of not less than 100 nuclear warheads.

Second, shouldn’t Israel refrain from using cluster bombs or cluster-bomb artillery ammunition in Lebanon, in view of the banning of such weapons in civilian areas by international law and further by Israel’s agreement with the U.S. that such weapons would not be used in civilian areas because of their devastating impact on children

Rose dismisses the first question by stating, “Nobody really knows if Israel possesses nuclear weapons.” This is pure baloney, and Rose, as well-informed as he is, surely knows it. It has been public knowledge for years and is an accepted truth at every level of the U.S. State Department, Defense Department and CIA. Why else would Israel refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in accord with long-standing U.S. policy, if it doesn’t have nuclear weapons

Let me repeat the question, “Shouldn’t Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” That’s the sort of “yes” or “no” question that honorable debaters answer, at the peril of being seen as wafflers, or should I use the term, clever politicians.

Rose’s dodging of the second question is even more glaring. “Should Congress refuse to authorize sending more cluster-bomb ammunition to Israel unless Israel agrees not to use them in civilian areas” Yes or no, Mr. Rose

These issues do not go to the security of Israel that Rose so passionately and properly defends. Cluster bombs don’t have nearly the effect on the trained soldiers of Hezbollah as they do on little children who don’t recognize the grenade-size bomblets as the lethal devices they are.

These issues go to whether it is in the best interests of the United States, first, to allow its allies to give cause to Muslims around the world to think that we are asking Iran to refrain from atomic weaponry while quietly allowing Israel to have such weaponry; and, second, to give cause to the Muslim world that we are not only supplying a deadly weapon chiefly harmful to children, but encouraging its use in southern Lebanon, thereby endangering our people by the showing of pictures of dead and maimed Lebanese children on television around the world

The nation has noted the terrible result of the photos of torture and humiliation of U.S. prisoners at Abu Gharib Prison shown to the rest of the world. Can there be any doubt that torture has not only humiliated us, but also served as an incentive for more suicide bombers I would add a third question. With Congress having voted against torture (over Rep. Richard Pombo’s objection), shouldn’t Israel agree to refrain from torture as well

If Rose will devote his considerable knowledge and wisdom to answering these three questions, I will agree with his fundamental argument that Israel ordinarily deserves U. S. support. But “ordinarily” does not mean support that hurts U. S. interests. I’m sure Rose will want to agree on that point, but I will ask it anyway. Does he agree that U.S. support for Israel should be conditioned on what is best for the United States in our continuing war with Islamic fundamentalists and in our continuing effort to regain respect around the world

That’s really four questions, but they are simple ones. And if Rose will answer them squarely, he and I can continue with this very worthwhile debate on how best to achieve Israel’s security.