Chomsky notes that Faurisson had been charged with being an anti-Semite and a Nazi, and that these were "serious charges that require evidence." He claims that he knew very little about Faurisson's writings and had no interest in them. After all, he had "felt no need to read Satanic Verses before signing endless petitions made for Rushdie." In formulating his position on the Faurisson case, Chomsky relied "mainly on charges conveyed to me by his harshest critics, which I then cited in full, pointing out, correctly, that they were utterly meaningless" (14 Aug. 1995). One of these critics was Vidal-Naquet, whom Chomsky did not name.
"[B]ut Vidal-Naquet later identified himself (correctly) as the person who had conveyed those charges to me as his strongest evidence, then charging that I had betrayed a confidence by identifying him (a lie, as he knows, one of many, which he also knows he can get away with). Since Vidal-Naquet, Faurisson's harshest and most knowledgeable critic, could come up with no evidence suggesting that he was an anti-Semite or had any political views at all, that charge seemed rather weak." (14 Aug. 1995)
What Chomsky did know about Faurisson "was that he had written letters to the press (which they refused to publish, apparently) praising the heroism of the Warsaw ghetto fighters and in general, praising those who fought the `good fight' against the Nazis; and that he had privately published pamphlets denying the existence of gas chambers" (14 Aug. 1995)
...
When all the facts are set forth, the Faurisson affair does tend to throw some of Chomsky's character flaws into relief, most clearly his unwillingness to practice simple appeasement when it comes to resolving his differences with those who attack him. Another remarkable aspect of the affair is the fact that it is used by Chomsky's detractors to divert attention away from his actual statements. Much energy has been expended quibbling over his use of certain words or particular argumentative strategies. Some of Chomsky's critics are more balanced and restrained: Vidal-Naquet, while he claims that "Chomsky is scarcely sensitive to the wounds he inflicts, but extremely attentive to whatever scratches he is forced to put up with" (68), is honest enough to recognize the obvious: "To be sure, it is not the case that Chomsky's thesis in any way approximates those of the neo-Nazis" (73).
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Brad DeLong wrote:
> I think Pierre Vidal-Naquet got it right when he wrote: "The simple
> truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical
> maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has
> the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or
> that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy
> is a comrade, or a 'relatively apolitical sort of liberal'. You did
> not have the right to take a falsifier of history and recast him in
> the colors of truth. "There was once, not so long ago, a man who
> uttered theis simple and powerful principle: 'It is the responsibility
> of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.' But perhaps
> you know him?"