Louis Farrakhan's recent video on the Netanyahu fiasco is an interesting example of a complex issue, namely, how someone with very little moral standing in any real sense can be sometimes be prone to a kernel of some kind of insight. Just watch the first few moments.
There are quite a few things to be said about Louis Farrakhan, the leader of The Nation of Islam.
For example, it can be said with very little consternation that Louis Farrakhan was probably the most immediately responsible person for the death of his mentor, Malcolm X. The author and journalist Karl Evanzz has written two substantial books, THE JUDAS FACTOR: THE PLOT TO KILL MALCOLM X and THE MESSENGER: THE RISE AND FALL OF ELIJAH MUHAMMAD, which show that, while there certainly were artificial antagonisms generated between the NOI and Malcolm by the FBI and CIA, who were aiming to neutralize Malcolm's agenda, the person most directly responsible for fostering the notion of Malcolm as a hypocrite was Farrakhan. In the NOI, the word hypocrite was a condemnation that denoted nothing less than a death penalty.
Or it can be easily argued that Farrakhan is a truly ahistorical thinker, prone to a bizarre conspiracy theory surrounding an extra-special roll for Jews in the Triangle Trade.
It is easy to write plenty about the man formerly known as Minister Louis X, but the best man to deliver it is the late Dr. John Henrik Clarke. For one thing, he knew the story from the beginning. In the early years of his ministry, Clarke's African history and culture exhibits attracted Malcolm's attention and Clarke became a sort of secular advisor. In this capacity, Clarke had an up-close and personal eyewitness perspective to the events that ended with assassination, which Clarke did not absolve Farrakhan of.
There is an underlying reason for this exercise. Louis Farrakhan is a problematic figure, putting it mildly. But the point is that his ability to say things that have some semblance of truth in regards to Israel/Palestine is symptomatic of how low Netanyahu has allowed things to go.
The New York Times today featured a missive about BDS at UCLA and how a young woman named Rachel Beyda went through some sort of exercise where her Jewish identity was considered a point of deliberation. It's difficult to discern whether this was idiocy or stupidity, but it is easy to see that this has generated a flash of writing about anti-Semitism on college campuses and all the rest of the usual.