I'm not impressed much by misleading legalese, BB, which is what these arguments often swirl around. I'm impressed by realities. Israel really has nuclear weapons, but won't admit to it officially. The obvious reason that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT is that it was was specifically arranged that way by Israel and the USA so that Israel can maintain silence about the reality of the situation. That was legal chicanery, intended to exempt Israel from what others are not exempted from. Israel should be held to the same international standard as other countries, which is to say, Israel should be required to reveal its WMDs if other people are required to. No double standard.

What could they possibly lose BY revealing what everyone already knows anyway???? Would their pride be hurt? I don't think anyone is going to try and take their nukes away... LOL!

Furthermore, no country should be expected to prove a negative proposition, meaning Iraq should not have been required in 2003 to prove it did NOT have WMDs (which is impossible to prove), nor should Iran. The burden of proof is upon those who say something does exist. They have to prove it does. If they can't prove it, they have no case, because then it's all just innuendo, and you cannot convict someone in a court of law based upon innuendo. You need proof of guilt, not just rumors of guilt spread by the prosecution.

Barry Finn is exactly right in his points regarding Israel and Iran. No double standard. If Iran must submit to international inspection of all its secret facilities, then so must Israel. That would be fair. That would be equitable. If Iran is to be attacked for not submitting to international inspection, then so must Israel be attacked for not submitting to the same. No double standard.

Heh! But I should live so long as to see that happen... ;-) I am well aware that I live in a society and in a world which does not treat all people in an equal fashion...despite its pretensions of democracy and moral rectitude.