✕
Capture d’écran 2025-07-13 182452
✕
✕
✕

The Jewish Cassandra Complex

The Jewish Cassandra Complex

The Self-Betrayal of Progressive Jewish Elites in the Face of Contemporary Antisemitic Threats

Contemporary Jewish communal politics in Western Europe and North America reveal a disturbing paradox: at precisely the historical moment when Islamist extremism poses the most documented, lethal threat to Jewish life since the Holocaust—evidenced by the October 2025 ISIS-pledged massacre at a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur—progressive Jewish institutional elites have systematically rejected counter-Islamist allies while embracing or tolerating radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist leftists whose ideological frameworks echo classical antisemitic tropes (Wistrich 2010; Julius 2010; Taguieff 2002). This phenomenon constitutes not merely a strategic miscalculation but a fundamental betrayal of Jewish security interests, explicable through intersecting theoretical frameworks from political science, sociology, and the psychology of minority politics: preference falsification under progressive social pressure (Kuran 1995), inverted in-group/out-group dynamics (Tajfel and Turner 1979), systematic frame misalignment in threat diagnosis (Snow and Benford 1988), and a collective amnesia regarding the Holocaust’s central lesson that Jewish survival depends on realistic threat assessment and acceptance of rare, genuine allies (Arendt 1951; Halbwachs 1992).​

The documented reality of Islamist antisemitic violence and progressive institutional responses

The evidentiary foundation for assessing contemporary Jewish security threats is unambiguous and empirically grounded in counterterrorism intelligence and attack data. On Yom Kippur 2025, Jihad al-Shamie, a UK national of Syrian origin, executed a vehicular ramming and stabbing attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, killing two Jewish worshippers and injuring others before calling emergency services mid-attack to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State. British counterterrorism officials confirmed that al-Shamie had not been previously identified as a threat, that he was motivated by radical Islamist ideology, and that the attack represented one of the most severe antisemitic atrocities in Europe since the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre. This incident occurred within a documented context of resurgent jihadist capability: MI5 Director General Ken McCallum warned in October 2024 that Islamic State, after years of suppression, had “resumed efforts to export terrorism,” with ISKP’s Moscow attack demonstrating renewed operational capacity and with “IS-connected activity” detected across European homelands, including the UK (McCallum 2024). Europol’s annual terrorism reports document that jihadist attacks caused more deaths and casualties than any other terrorist category in the European Union during 2015–2020, with 62 killed in ten completed jihadist attacks in 2017 alone, and with 50,000 radicalized jihadists estimated across Europe by the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator in 2017 (Europol 2017; de Kerchove 2017).​

Against this backdrop of documented, lethal Islamist antisemitism, the October 2025 response by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council to Israeli Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli’s invitation of Tommy Robinson exemplifies progressive institutional prioritization of ideological respectability over communal security imperatives. Robinson, founder of the English Defence League and a prominent counter-Islamist activist with a long public record of support for Israel and vocal opposition to radical Islam, was invited by Minister Chikli immediately following the Manchester synagogue massacre, with Chikli describing him as “a courageous leader on the front line against radical Islam” and “a true friend of Israel and the Jewish people”. The Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council issued a joint condemnation, calling Robinson “a thug who represents the very worst of Britain” and asserting that “his presence undermines those genuinely working to tackle Islamist extremism,” a statement that prioritized progressive coalition maintenance over acknowledging shared threat perception with a figure who, regardless of his broader political controversies, has consistently identified Islamist extremism as a civilizational danger and has publicly defended Jewish communities. This institutional rejection occurred within days of an ISIS-pledged terrorist murdering Jews on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar—a temporal juxtaposition that underscores the profound strategic incoherence of progressive Jewish elite threat assessment.​

Parallel to their rejection of counter-Islamist solidarity figures, progressive Jewish organizations in the United States and Europe have systematically aligned with, or failed to challenge, radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist movements whose diagnostic frames employ antisemitic double standards and whose coalition partners include Islamist-oriented organizations. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the largest Jewish anti-Zionist organization in the United States with over 32,000 dues-paying members and 35 chapters as of 2024, formally endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in 2015, declared itself explicitly “anti-Zionist” in 2019, and runs the “J-Nay” project in partnership with organizations such as American Muslims for Palestine, whose leadership and advocacy have documented ties to Hamas-supporting networks. JVP’s ideological framework characterizes Zionism as a “settler-colonial” project and Israel as an “apartheid state,” rhetorical and conceptual moves that scholars of contemporary antisemitism, including Wistrich, Julius, and Taguieff, have identified as manifestations of “new antisemitism” that singles out the Jewish state with ahistorical analogies and essentializing condemnations not applied to other nation-states facing comparable security dilemmas (Wistrich 2010; Julius 2010; Taguieff 2002). Similarly, IfNotNow, a movement of U.S. Jews “organizing our community to end U.S. support for Israel’s apartheid system,” mobilizes Jewish identity in service of delegitimizing the Jewish state’s right to self-defense while maintaining studied silence on or rhetorical minimization of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist terror organizations’ explicit genocidal antisemitism.​

The empirical reality is stark: progressive Jewish elites have constructed a moral and strategic framework in which Tommy Robinson—a counter-Islamist activist who explicitly supports Jewish communal security—is anathematized as beyond the pale, while organizations that collaborate with Islamist-adjacent networks and that employ rhetoric delegitimizing Jewish statehood are embraced or tolerated as legitimate voices within intra-Jewish discourse. This inversion demands rigorous theoretical explanation.​

Why progressive Jewish elites betray communal security interests

Timur Kuran’s concept of preference falsification—the public misrepresentation of private preferences under social pressure—illuminates how progressive norms within Jewish communal organizations suppress dissenting security assessments (Kuran 1995). Kuran demonstrates that individuals strategically conceal genuine beliefs when publicly expressing them would incur reputational or social costs, and that this dynamic can produce preference cascades in which apparent consensus rapidly collapses once a threshold of open dissent is reached (Kuran 1995). Within progressive Jewish organizational contexts, where ideological alignment with broader left-wing movements on issues ranging from social justice to immigration policy has become a marker of communal legitimacy, expressing concern about Islamist extremism or advocating pragmatic security alliances with counter-Islamist figures risks stigmatization as “Islamophobic,” “right-wing,” or “racist”—labels that carry severe social penalties within these milieus. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s “spiral of silence” theory complements this analysis, positing that individuals assess the climate of opinion in their reference groups and suppress minority views to avoid isolation, thereby amplifying the public dominance of the perceived majority position even when private opinion distributions differ substantially (Noelle-Neumann 1974). Surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that many Jews privately harbor serious concerns about Islamist antisemitism and progressive movements’ tolerance of anti-Zionist rhetoric, but remain publicly silent or conformist due to fear of communal ostracism, a dynamic that allows progressive organizational elites to claim representativeness while systematically misrepresenting grassroots security priorities.​

Social identity theory, as elaborated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, demonstrates that individuals derive significant components of self-concept from group memberships and that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are fundamental to identity maintenance, with groups pursuing “positive distinctiveness” through favorable intergroup comparisons (Tajfel and Turner 1979). In the case of progressive Jewish elites, however, the salient in-group has shifted from ethnic/communal identity to ideological/political identity: the relevant “us” is no longer “Jews” but “progressives,” with the primary out-group being not antisemites or Islamist extremists but “right-wing” or “conservative” Jews and their perceived gentile allies. This inversion is empirically observable in the Board of Deputies’ harsh condemnation of Tommy Robinson while employing far more measured, diplomatic language toward Labour Party figures with documented records of tolerating antisemitism during the Jeremy Corbyn era, suggesting that ideological proximity to progressive movements trumps objective threat assessment. Michèle Lamont’s concept of “symbolic boundaries”—the conceptual distinctions actors draw to categorize objects, people, and practices—further clarifies how progressive Jewish elites engage in boundary work that stigmatizes co-ethnics who ally with counter-Islamist figures as morally contaminated, while boundary work toward anti-Zionist leftists remains porous and accommodating (Lamont 1992; Lamont and Molnár 2002). The result is a community in which strategic realists about Islamist threats are marginalized as “right-wing extremists,” while those who minimize such threats or ally with movements tolerating antisemitic rhetoric are celebrated as “progressive” and “moral”.​

David Snow and Robert Benford’s framing perspective on social movements distinguishes three core framing tasks: diagnostic framing, prognostic framing, and motivational framing (Snow and Benford 1988; 2000). Progressive Jewish institutional elites exhibit systematic misalignment across all three framing dimensions when addressing contemporary antisemitism. Diagnostically, they frame “far-right” movements and “white nationalism” as the primary antisemitic threat facing Western Jewish communities, a frame that, while capturing genuine dangers, systematically underweights or rhetorically minimizes the empirically dominant source of lethal antisemitic violence in Europe over the past two decades: Islamist extremism. Prognostically, they prescribe coalition-building exclusively with progressive left and centrist movements while categorically rejecting alliances with counter-Islamist figures, thereby foreclosing pragmatic security partnerships with actors who share their threat diagnosis vis-à-vis radical Islam . Motivationally, their frames emphasize virtue-signaling to broader progressive coalitions—demonstrating that “we are not like those right-wing Jews” or “we reject Islamophobia”—rather than mobilizing communal resources to address the documented, lethal threat posed by jihadist antisemitism. This triple misalignment produces strategic incoherence: progressive Jewish elites publicly denounce those fighting the ideological movement that just murdered Jews on Yom Kippur, while embracing or tolerating movements whose rhetoric delegitimizes Jewish self-defense.​

Historical amnesia: Abandoning Holocaust lessons and Arendtian warnings

Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) provide enduring frameworks for understanding how ideological conformism, bureaucratic rationalization, and the “banality of evil” enable catastrophic moral failures, with her analysis emphasizing the imperative of independent judgment against totalizing ideologies and the dangers of sacrificing particular identities and concrete loyalties to abstract universalist projects (Arendt 1951; Arendt 1963). Progressive Jewish elites’ embrace of post-national, intersectional progressive ideology at the expense of particularist Jewish security imperatives represents precisely the kind of ideological capture Arendt warned against, subordinating the existential needs of a vulnerable minority to the demands of a broader political movement that demonstrates, at best, inconsistent commitment to Jewish safety and, at worst, active tolerance of antisemitic rhetoric when cloaked in anti-Zionist or anti-racist language. Maurice Halbwachs’ sociological theory of collective memory posits that groups maintain identity and continuity through shared commemorative practices and narratives about the past, which structure present perceptions and future orientations (Halbwachs 1992). The Holocaust functions as the central collective memory anchor for modern Jewish identity, yet progressive Jewish elites have systematically misapplied its lessons, interpreting it primarily as a warning against “right-wing authoritarianism” and “xenophobia” while ignoring or downplaying its more fundamental lesson: that Jewish survival depends on realistic threat assessment, collective self-defense capacity, and acceptance of allies wherever they may be found, regardless of ideological purity tests. The historical parallel is stark: interwar Jewish communists and radical leftists dismissed Zionist warnings about the Nazi threat, prioritized ideological solidarity with universalist workers’ movements over particularist Jewish security concerns, and paid catastrophic prices when those movements proved unwilling or unable to protect Jewish lives.​

The mensch Jews: Intellectual honesty, moral courage, and strategic realism

In contrast to the strategic myopia and moral abdication of progressive institutional elites stand those Jews—across the political spectrum, but united by intellectual honesty and communal loyalty—who refuse to subordinate Jewish security to progressive respectability, who recognize Islamist extremism as the primary contemporary antisemitic threat in Europe, who are willing to accept pragmatic alliances with counter-Islamist figures despite progressive disapproval, and who publicly challenge the antisemitic double standards embedded in much radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist discourse. Israeli Minister Amichai Chikli exemplifies this stance: in the immediate aftermath of an ISIS-pledged massacre of Jews, he extended solidarity to a counter-Islamist activist who, whatever his other political positions, has consistently identified radical Islam as a civilizational threat and has vocally supported Jewish communal security, and he refused to back down when the Board of Deputies demanded conformity to progressive orthodoxy. British Jews who attended pro-Israel rallies alongside counter-Islamist speakers, who publicly challenged the Board’s rejection of Robinson, and who prioritized communal security over ideological purity demonstrate the same Arendtian capacity for independent judgment against social pressure. Jewish academics and public intellectuals who critique BDS, who expose the antisemitic tropes embedded in “settler-colonialism” and “apartheid” frameworks applied exclusively to Israel, and who challenge organizations like JVP and IfNotNow for legitimizing delegitimization exhibit moral courage in environments where such critiques invite professional and social penalties. These righteous Jews embody menschlichkeit—the Yiddish ethical ideal of integrity, decency, and moral backbone—not through partisan affiliation but through refusal to sacrifice truth and communal welfare to ideological fashion.​

Michael Walzer’s The Paradox of Liberation (2015) analyzes how secular national liberation movements, including Zionism, face counter-pressures from religious revivals and identity politics, and warns against the temptation to abandon particularist commitments in favor of abstract universalism, arguing that sustainable democratic politics requires rooted identities and concrete loyalties alongside universal principles (Walzer 2015). The mensch Jews understand this balance: they defend universal liberal-democratic norms while refusing to allow those norms to be weaponized against Jewish particularity, they oppose bigotry in all forms while rejecting false equivalences between counter-Islamist activism and antisemitic violence, and they build coalitions based on shared interests and mutual respect rather than ideological conformity.​

Why Jews cannot afford this betrayal

The strategic consequences of progressive Jewish elite myopia are severe and measurable. The Manchester synagogue massacre demonstrates that Islamist antisemitism poses a lethal, ongoing threat to Jewish life in Europe, yet progressive Jewish organizations devote disproportionate rhetorical and organizational resources to combating “right-wing” threats and to policing alliances with counter-Islamist figures rather than to mobilizing effective countermeasures against jihadist violence. By rejecting pragmatic alliances with counter-Islamist activists and movements, progressive Jewish elites foreclose potentially valuable intelligence-sharing, advocacy coordination, and political support from actors who possess deep knowledge of Islamist networks and who command significant grassroots followings willing to publicly defend Jewish communities. By tolerating or legitimizing organizations like JVP and IfNotNow within intra-Jewish discourse, progressive elites normalize antisemitic frames—”settler-colonialism,” “apartheid,” “genocide”—that delegitimize Jewish self-defense and that provide ideological cover for violent actors, including Islamist terrorists who explicitly cite such rhetoric as justification for attacks on Jewish targets. The historical parallel is unavoidable: just as interwar Jewish leftists prioritized ideological solidarity over particularist security and paid catastrophic prices, contemporary progressive Jewish elites risk a comparable failure if Islamist antisemitic violence escalates and Jewish communities find themselves abandoned by the very progressive movements they courted at the expense of more realistic alliances.​

Jews are a historically vulnerable minority with few consistent allies across time and geography (Shain and Barth 2003). When individuals and movements extend genuine solidarity—as Tommy Robinson has done through his public support for Israel and opposition to Islamist extremism, regardless of his positions on other issues—strategic realism dictates accepting such alliances rather than performatively rejecting them to signal progressive respectability. Progressive Jewish elites’ categorical rejection of such alliances reflects not principled moral stance but strategic incompetence and a fundamental misunderstanding of minority politics in pluralist democracies: successful minority security strategies require diverse coalitions, pragmatic threat assessment, and willingness to work with imperfect allies who share core security interests.​

The imperative of intellectual honesty and strategic realism

The empirically documented reality is unambiguous: Islamist extremism poses the primary lethal antisemitic threat to European Jews in the contemporary period, as demonstrated by attack data, counterterrorism assessments, and the October 2025 Manchester synagogue massacre. Progressive Jewish institutional elites, exemplified by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and organizations like JVP and IfNotNow, have systematically rejected alliances with counter-Islamist figures while embracing or tolerating radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist movements whose rhetorical frameworks employ antisemitic double standards and whose coalition partners include Islamist-adjacent organizations. This strategic inversion is explicable through preference falsification under progressive social pressure (Kuran 1995), inverted in-group/out-group dynamics prioritizing ideological over ethnic identity (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Lamont 1992), systematic frame misalignment in threat diagnosis and prescription (Snow and Benford 1988), and historical amnesia regarding the Holocaust’s central lesson that Jewish survival depends on realistic threat assessment and acceptance of rare allies (Arendt 1951; Halbwachs 1992).​

The righteous Jews—the mensch Jews—who exhibit intellectual honesty, moral courage, and strategic realism by recognizing the Islamist threat, accepting pragmatic alliances, and challenging antisemitic double standards in progressive discourse, deserve recognition and support as defenders of authentic Jewish security interests against the ideological conformism of co-ethnic elites. The stakes are existential: if progressive Jewish elites continue to reject genuine allies, to tolerate delegitimizing discourse, and to misallocate communal resources based on ideological fashion rather than empirical threat assessment, Jewish communities risk catastrophic vulnerability at precisely the moment when Islamist antisemitism demonstrates renewed operational capacity and ideological virulence.

Intellectual honesty, historical consciousness, and communal loyalty demand a fundamental reorientation: away from progressive respectability and toward strategic realism, away from virtue-signaling and toward threat-based resource allocation, and away from ideological purity tests and toward pragmatic alliance-building with all who genuinely support Jewish security, regardless of their broader political profiles.

References

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Viking Press.

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press.

Bat Ye’or. (2005). Eurabia: The Euro-Arab axis. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950)

Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2015). Party in the street: The antiwar movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11. Cambridge University Press.

Homer. (8th century BCE). The Iliad (R. Fagles, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (1990)

Julius, A. (2010). Trials of the diaspora: A history of anti-Semitism in England. Oxford University Press.

Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard University Press.

Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.

Mamdani, M. (2020). Neither settler nor native: The making and unmaking of permanent minorities. Harvard University Press.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43-51.

Shain, Y., & Barth, A. (2003). Diasporas and international relations theory. International Organization, 57(3), 449-479.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197-217.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

Taguieff, P.-A. (2002). La nouvelle judéophobie [The new Judeophobia]. Mille et Une Nuits.

Walzer, M. (2015). The paradox of liberation: Secular revolutions and religious counterrevolutions. Yale University Press.

Wistrich, R. S. (2010). A lethal obsession: Anti-Semitism from antiquity to the global jihad. Random House.

Picture of Fundji Benedict

Fundji Benedict

All Posts
✕
  • Centres on the utility, significance, and potential impact of research and analysis
  • Encompasses a range of research attributes, including significance, utility, timeliness, actionability, practicality, applicability, feasibility, innovation, adaptability, and impact
  • Mandates that research teams clearly define the scope and objectives of their work to ensure its timeliness, feasibility, and utility
  • May necessitate adjustments to research plans -such as research questions, data sources, or methodologies- in response to new insights or evolving circumstances

    In brief, we aim to shape and advance effective, timely solutions to critical Policy challenges
✕
  • Emphasises the pursuit of robust, replicable scientific inquiry to uncover evidence-based insights that support informed decision-making,foster stakeholder consensus, and drive effective implementation
  • Is anchored by a well-defined purpose and carefully crafted research questions.Rigorous research produces findings derived from sound, contextually appropriate methodologies, which may include established techniques, innovative approaches, or experimental designs. Conclusions and recommendations are logically derived from these findings.
  • Encompasses a range of research attributes, including validity, reliability, credibility, systematicity, creativity, persuasiveness m, logical coherence, cutting-edge innovation, authority, robustness, replicability, defensibility, and adaptability
  • Mandates that LVS researchers remain abreast of, and potentially contribute  to, advancements jn theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and data sources.

    In brief, we conduct impartial analyses rooted in a clear purpose, employing rigorous logic and the most suitable theories, methods, and data sources available
✕
  • Emphasises the thorough, effective, and appropriate documentation and dissemination of the research process (including design, development, execution, and support) and its outcomes (findings and recommendations)
  • Encompasses key research attributes, such as accountability, comprehensive reporting, replicability, and data accessibility
  • Mandates that research teams clearly articulate and document their purpose, scope, funding sources, assumptions, methodologies, data, results, limitations, findings, and policy recommendations to the fullest extent practicable, addressing the needs of those who oversee, evaluate, utilise, replicate, or are impacted by the research.
  • May be enhanced through supplementary materials, including research land, protocols, tools, code, datasets, reports, presentations, infographics, translations and videos
  • Requires LVS documents and products to have a defined purpose, be accessible, easily discoverable, and tailored to meet the needs of their intended audiences

    In brief, we communicate our research processes, analyses, findings, and recommendations in a manner that is clear, accessible, and actionable
✕
  • Centres in the ethical, impartial, independent, and objective execution of research
  • Enhances the validity, credibility, acceptance, and adoption of research outcomes
  • Is upheld by institutional principles, policies, procedures, and oversight mechanisms
  • Is rooted in a genuine understanding of the values and norms of pertinent stakeholders

    In brief, we undertake research with ethical integrity, mitigate conflicts of interest, and preserve independence and objectivity
✕

Engaged Contributor

All Visionary Benefits +

  • Members-only White Papers
  • Regular Contributor in Communiqué
  • Private in-person conversation with one of our Experts
  • Guest Speaker in Podcasts / Webinars
  • Recognition as Engaged Contributor (website)

Contribution Level: $150 monthly/$1,250 annually

✕

Important Contributor

All Strategist Benefits +

  • Members-only Position papers
  • Recognition as Important contributor in Annual Impact Report
  • Complimentary copies of new publications
  • Publication of one article in Communiqué (full page) 
Contribution Level: $60 monthly/$500 annually
✕

Engaged Supporter

All Sentinel Benefits +

  • Members-only Position papers (BRAVE, COMPASS, STRIDE)
  • Annual Impact Report
  • Access to members-only podcasts/webinars
  • One article in Communiqué (½ page)

Contribution Level: $30 monthly/$250 annually

✕
  • Emphasises the integration and balanced consideration of diverse, significant perspectives throughout the research process to ensure objective and equitable representation
  • Fosters awareness of the comprehensive range of scientific and policy viewpoints on multifaceted issues
  • Guarantees that these diverse perspectives are fairly addressed throughout the research process, accurately represented, and evaluated based on evidence
  • Incorporates perspectives from individuals with varied backgrounds and expertise within research teams and through collaboration with diverse reviewers, partners and stakeholders
  • Strengthens research teams’ capacity to comprehend the policy context and enhance the applicability of findings and conclusions

    In brief, we systematically integrate all relevant perspectives across the research process
✕
  • Enhances comprehension of the problem and it’s context, while strengthening research design
  • Guides the evaluation of potential solutions and facilitates effective implementation
  • Entails incorporating diverse, relevant perspectives to promote rigorous, mitigate unintended bias in research design, execution, and dissemination, and ensure findings are pertinent and clear to key stakeholders
  • Arrives to make LVS research accessible, where feasible, to a wide array of stakeholders beyond sponsors, decision-makers, or implementers
  • Occurs across the research life cycle through formal and informal methods, including discussions, interviews, focus groups, surveys, advisory panels, presentations, and community engagements

    In brief, we actively collaborate with stakeholders vested in the conduct, interpretation, and utilisation of our research.
✕

Entry Level

Recognition as Supporter
  • Monthly Newsletter Communiqué
  • Briefs (BRAVE, COMPASS, STRIDE)
  • Beyond Boundaries Podcast
  • Digital Membership
  • Merchandising (in process)
Contribution Level: $7 monthly/$60 annually
✕

We offer a 4-tier program with highly exclusive Benefits. Read more about this strategic partnership.

Explore
✕

You are invited to contribute at your discretion, and we deeply appreciate your support. Together, we can make a meaningful impact. To join us or learn more, please contact us at [email protected]

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

✕

The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation: A Legacy Reborn

June 11, 2025 – 249 years ago, on this very date, history pivoted on the axis of human possibility.

June 11, 1776. The Continental Congress, meeting in the hallowed chambers of Independence Hall, appointed five extraordinary visionaries to a committee that would forever alter the trajectory of human civilization. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston—men of profound intellect and unwavering conviction—were entrusted with the sacred task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. In that momentous decision, they established not merely a political document, but a philosophical foundation upon which the principles of liberty, self-governance, and human dignity would rest for generations yet unborn.

Today, We Stand at Another Threshold

On June 11, 2025—exactly 249 years later—the Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation emerges to carry forward the luminous torch of those founding principles into the complexities of our modern age. Just as Jefferson and his fellow committee members understood that true independence required both visionary thinking and strategic action, the Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation recognizes that preserving and advancing liberty in the 21st century demands sophisticated analysis, bold leadership, and unwavering commitment to the fundamental values that define human flourishing.

A Foundation Built on Timeless Principles

The parallels between then and now are profound:

  • Then, Five visionary leaders gathered to articulate the philosophical foundations of a new nation. Now, A new foundation emerges to advance strategic thinking on liberty’s most pressing challenges
  • Then, The Committee of Five understood that ideas must be coupled with practical wisdom. Now, The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation bridges timeless principles with contemporary strategic insight
  • Then, They recognized that liberty requires constant vigilance and thoughtful stewardship. Now, We commit to that same vigilance in an increasingly complex world

In the shadow of Ethiopia’s Omo Valley, where the Mursi people etch resilience into their skin through lip plates and the Hamar tribe’s bull-jumping rites forge indomitable courage, a new chapter in the global fight for liberty begins. The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation (LVS Foundation) launches today as a vanguard of 21st-century research, merging scholarly rigor with actionable strategy through its revolutionary Cohesive Research Ecosystem (CORE). Founded by Dr. Fundji Benedict—a scholar whose lineage intertwines Afrikaner grit, Ethiopian sovereignty, and Jewish perseverance—this institution embodies a legacy of defiance inherited from history’s most audacious truth-seekers, from Zora Neale Hurston to the warrior women of Ethiopia. This duality—scholarship as sword and shield—mirrors Dr. Benedict’s own journey. For 10+ years, she navigated bureaucratic inertia and geopolitical minefields, her resolve hardened by the Ethiopian women warriors who once defied Italian fascism.

 

 

I. The Hurston Imperative: Truth as a Weapon

Zora Neale Hurston, the Harlem Renaissance icon who “broke through racial barriers” and declared, “Truth is a letter from courage,” is the Foundation’s spiritual lodestar. Like Hurston, who documented Black life under Jim Crow with unflinching authenticity, the LVS Foundation wields research as both shield and scalpel. BRAVE, its human rights arm, intervenes in crises with the precision Hurston brought to folklore studies, transforming marginalized voices into policy. When Somali warlords displace the Gabra people or Ethiopian officials seize tribal lands, BRAVE acts with the urgency of Hurston’s anthropological missions, ensuring that “truth-telling becomes liberation”.

Dr. Benedict’s decade-long journey mirrors Hurston’s defiance. “My ancestors did not bow. I will not bow,” she asserts, her cadence echoing the Omo Valley’s ceremonial chants. This ethos permeates the Foundation’s CORE model, where BRAVE, COMPASS, and STRIDE operate in symphonic unity. “CORE is our answer to siloed thinking,” Dr. Benedict explains. “Through this cohesive ecosystem, BRAVE, COMPASS, and STRIDE work in concert—breaking down

barriers between academic research, fieldwork, and strategic action. This enables us to develop innovative solutions and stride toward lasting change”.

 

II. Necropolitics and the Battle for Human Dignity

The Foundation’s research agenda confronts necropolitics—a term coined by Achille Mbembe to describe regimes that decide “who may live and who must die”. In Somalia, where Al-Shabaab turns villages into killing fields, and South Africa, where post-apartheid politics increasingly marginalize minorities, the LVS Foundation exposes systemic dehumanization. STRIDE, now correctly positioned as the bulwark against terrorism and antisemitism, dismantles networks fueled by Qatari financing and ideological venom. COMPASS, the geopolitical hub, maps Qatar’s $6 billion influence campaigns, revealing how Doha’s alliances with Islamist groups destabilize democracies from Sahel to Paris, France.

“Qatar hides behind diplomatic immunity while funding mass murder,” Dr. Benedict states, citing Israeli intelligence linking Qatari funds to Hamas’s October 7 massacre. Meanwhile, BRAVE echoes fieldwork in Ethiopia’s Babille Elephant Sanctuary—where Dr. Benedict has studied bee barriers to resolve human-wildlife conflict—and epitomizes the Foundation’s ethos: “We turned conflict into cooperation, just as our ancestors turned adversity into art”.

 

III. The Ethiopian Woman Warrior: A Blueprint for Ferocity

The Foundation’s DNA is steeped in the legacy of Ethiopian women who weaponized intellect and audacity. Woizero Shewareged Gedle, who orchestrated prison breaks and ammunition heist during Italy’s occupation, finds her echo in STRIDE’s Intelligence operations. She struck an Italian officer mid-interrogation and declared, “You may imprison me, but you will not insult me”. Her defiance lives in STRIDE’s intelligence operations and BRAVE’s land-rights advocacy for all minorities like the Hamar, who endure ritual whipping to cement bonds of loyalty – a fight as visceral as it is cerebral -, but also the tribes or the Afrikaners in South Africa who face expropriation of their property without compensation. Dr. Benedict’s leadership rejects the false binary between academia and activism: “Research is not abstraction—it is alchemy. We transmute data into justice”.

 

IV. Conclusion: Lighting the Torch for Generations

The Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation stands as more than an institution—it is a living testament to the unyielding spirit of those who refuse to let darkness prevail. In a world where necropolitics reduces human lives to chess pieces and terrorism metastasizes in the shadows, the Foundation’s CORE research ecosystem illuminates a different path: one where rigorous scholarship becomes the catalyst for liberation. Every report published, every policy advocated, and every community defended is a reaffirmation of democracy’s most sacred tenet—that every life holds irreducible value.

Dr. Benedict’s vision transcends academic abstraction: BRAVE’s defense of pastoralist communities, COMPASS’s geopolitical cartography, and STRIDE’s dismantling of hate networks are not isolated acts but threads in a tapestry woven with the same audacity that Zora Neale Hurston brought to anthropology and Woizero Shewareged Gedle to resistance. The Foundation’s decade-long gestation mirrors the patience of Ethiopian honey hunters who wait years for the perfect hive—a reminder that enduring change demands both urgency and perseverance.

As a beacon for liberty, the LVS Foundation invites collaboration across borders and disciplines. To governments grappling with Qatar’s influence campaigns, to activists documenting human rights abuses, to citizens weary of complacency, the Foundation offers not just data but a blueprint for courage and defiance. Its research ecosystem—dynamic, interconnected, and unapologetically action-oriented—proves that knowledge, when wielded with integrity, can dismantle even the most entrenched systems of oppression.

 

The Torch Burns Bright

Over the past decade, Dr Benedict has combined rigorous academic work with on-the-ground engagement, building the knowledge and networks required to create this institution. Now, as the Foundation opens its doors, it stands as a testament to principled scholarship and action. In the legacy of Zora Neale Hurston’s fearless truth-telling, the LVS Foundation embraces the

power of knowledge guided by values. Crucially, the LVS Foundation maintains strict independence from any partisan or governmental funding. This non-partisanship is a cornerstone of its identity. “From day one, we refuse to be anyone’s instrument – no government, no party. Our independence guarantees that our voice remains unbiased and our research uncompromised,” Dr. Benedict emphasizes. “We owe that to the truth we seek. Hurston taught us about authenticity and courage; in that spirit, we will not pander or censor ourselves. We will ask the hard questions and pursue answers – wherever they lead – in service of liberty and human dignity.”

The revolution Dr. Benedict ignited is not hers alone. It belongs to every individual who dares to believe that democracy can be defended, that integrity can be restored, and that liberty is worth every sacrifice. Zora Neale Hurston once wrote, “There are years that ask questions and years that answer.” For the LVS Foundation, this is the year of answers and a responsibility to honor Hurston’s legacy by ensuring truth is not just spoken but lived. Those seeking to support Liberty Values & Strategy Foundation—through funding, fieldwork, or amplification—are welcomed at [email protected] or [email protected].