The myth of the double-standard with Israel and Iraq regarding weapons of mass destruction is dispelled in an article in The Economist (via Noah). Despite the requisite jabs at Israel, it explains that it is Iraq, not Israel, who is in breach of international law in this case.
What, though, about Israel’s nukes? Does its status as an undeclared nuclear power put it on a par with Iraq, which has tried to become one? No. [. . .]
Two decades on, Israel has still not signed the NPT. This infuriates the treaty’s supporters, who have been striving to make it “universal”. But, as with any other treaty, governments are free not to sign. What they are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly. This, it is now ruefully accepted, is what Iraq tried to do, and may still be trying to do. Israel is thought to possess a large nuclear arsenal, about which it is not being open and honest, and this is provoking to its neighbours. But it is not evidence of “double standards”. Being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law.
The article provides a lot more historical detail and essentially explains why comparing Israel and Iraq is like comparing apples to, well, plastic explosives.