The 2nd Amendment And The Middle East

American conservatives are fond of, and even zealous for, proclaiming peopleˋs right to bear arms. But much of their enthusiasm loses its luster when applying that right to those outside of our borders.

Take Israel and the Occupied Territories for example. Many conservative Americans will mindlessly repeat the claim that Israel has a right to defend itself. But how many of those same conservative Americans will also say that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. And guess which group is most threatened by the other.

If we look at Israelˋs neighbors, very few are allowed to acquire enough arms to have a deterence against aggression from a neighbor. Palestinians have been forbidden from such acquisitions. But so to has Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. One has to wonder when Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have reached their quota for weapons. And yet, Israelˋs regional policies strongly suggest that its immediate neighbors should insist on acquiring as many weapons as possible in case of future military actions practiced by Israel.

Itˋs not true that there are no Palestinians who are allowed to be armed. And certainly, Lebanon has an army. But despite the constant attacks by Israel on Lebanon prior to  the recent war against Iran, Lebanon is not allowed to acquire any force that could deter Israel from its military actions. And so this is where we need to admit to the privilege Americans have to bear arms rather than claiming that it is a right. That is because regardless of whether one is talking about freedom, liberty, or rights, when equality is absent, what we are really. talking about is privilege.

Why don't Israel's neighbors have the same right to bear arms like some Americans believe that they themselves are entitled to? That has to do with America's Security Strategy. In that work, the U.S. government's goal is to prohibit any non American-friendly Middle Eastern nation from gaining a strategic advantage over the area. That boils down to only granting Israel the "right" to acquire as many arms as its heart's desire.

And so the short of it is that America limits the acquisition of weapons to those nations that it deems to be an actual or possible threat to its interests. Therefore, we need to ask if our government can limit the weapons that a foreign nation can have depending whether our government feels threatened by them, why can't our government limit the weapons that its citizens can have when others feel threatened,  or even worse, by those weapons?