Tradition

I listened to an interview with King Addullah of Jordan this morning. This man in a suit is invested with hereditary power over his population. He lives a luxurious lifestyle. He is surrounded by armed men to keep him safe and in power. There is a good reason: His great grandfather was assassinated in 1951. His Palestinian assassin's motivation is said to be the king's pro-Israeli stance. 

King Abdullah of Jordan

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," says Shakespeare's Henry IV. The sighing resignation of today's monarchs, however, is laughable. They are simply an elite group who will not discharge their status for selfish reasons. If all the current royals around the world abdicated, there would be a one-week news cycle which would thrill the media, but nothing much would change on the ground. Royals are vestigial remains of a very ineffective method of governance, wrapped in irrational egotism and greed for privilege. 

History is a lesson book for the wise. Clinging to its vestiges is the work of fools who have the luxury to do so. Rigidly basing all progress on some historic institution, as the religious Constitutionalists wish to do here in the U.S., is a guaranteed way to prolong human suffering in the name of tradition.

As our own government stands against the Palestinian appeal to the United Nations for overdue justice against ethnic apartheid, I reflect on the detriment of tradition in politics. If universal human rights trumped tradition in this case, a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be readily expedited by the United Nations with full support of true democracies. Royalty stands as a reminder of the use of tradition to undercut universal economic and social justice. Now the President of the U.S. joins their ranks in his obstruction of the Palestinian's plea. Perhaps, like a royal, he serves tradition over the human rights of the Palestinians.