The Logical Fallacy here...
is equivocation, or roughly, changing the meaning of things to suit one's purpose.
Here you're trying to paint Israel as the
police, Iraq or Saddam as a serial killer, without offering an argument or justification for these arbitrary assignments.
Your argument is that it's OK for Israel to have WMD but not Iraq, just as it's OK for the police to have weapons but not serial killers. By extension, then, I assume you're also arguing (fallaciously) that it's also OK for the police to break the law (UN resolutions).
The logical fallacy is yours.
sp