No need to go to al-Jazeera for muddle-headed moral equivalence when you can get it once a week from Mansour El-Kikhia in the San Antonio Express News:

Why should the Middle East be hostage to an Israeli nuclear blackmail and not an Iranian one?

Indeed, if humanity can't get rid of these awful weapons, then the more the better.

The only "blackmail" Israel is doing with nuclear weapons in the Middle East is making sure radical Muslims don't turn Jerusalem and Tel Aviv into piles of burning rubble. Where I come from that's called deterrence or self defense, but I can see how those who might not be so concerned about the survival of the Jewish state (or those who don't recognize its right to exist at all) may see things a bit differently.

As to El-Kikhia's other point, before we go handing out nukes to Syria, Libya, and the Palestinians under the grotesquely naive proposition that what the world really needs is more nuclear parity between East and West or between the first world and the third world, it's probably best to consider that there is only one group of people currently on the planet who've proven not to be rational actors.  Only one group of people have strapped bombs to themselves and flown planes into skyscrapers. Only one group of people who've shown they value taking innocent life more than taking their own.

As far as I'm concerned, any state or regime that condones, supports, or sympathizes with such individuals and who may possibly provide them with them means to kill millions of innocent people should never be allowed anywhere near a nuclear weapon. That is surely a pipedream, since Pakistan has a bomb and Iran is on the way, but so is the idea that responsible nuclear nations unilaterally disarm. In the meantime, the civilized world has to fight with everything it has to keep nukes out of the hands of those most likely to use them.