MacLeech I have to admit that your logic is fascinating. Let’s look at this a little more closely, shall we? I won’t bother going back to quote your previous statements, because we all know you’ve made the claims.
Firstly, you said that Iran has, as an official goal, the destruction of Israel. This, by your logic, means that Iran can never have nuclear weapons, and that Israel is justified in flouting international law, violating the sovereign airspace of other countries, and acting to destroy anything they claim advances their so-called adversaries toward that end.
You have also said that, because of the former genocide against the Jewish people (not Israel, but the Jewish people; they are separate things), Israel is justified in being stubbornly non-compliant with U.N. Security Council resolutions, not being a signatory to the NPT, not co-operating with the IAEA, and having nuclear weapons.
Since double-standards are not allowed, let’s consider for a moment what are the implications.
Since as far back as Herzl, some within the movement to establish a “Jewish state” or govern said state have advocated for the forced displacement, dehumanising treatment and even outright extermination of the Palestinian people (i.e. “genocide”). So, by your logic, the Palestinians should be allowed nuclear weapons to halt the ongoing genocide and as a deterrent from it resuming in the future; to borrow a common refrain, “Never again!”.
Using your other claim, and given that various Israeli officials have called for the “removal” of the Palestinians, they represent an existential threat to another people. As a result, Israel cannot, in good conscience, allow itself to have a nuclear weapon. Therefore, they must officially and formally dispose of them, and halt all non-civilian research. Since they aren’t using nuclear reactors for power-generation, they don’t need them at all. Or does there need to be an “operation” to neutralise the Israeli threat?