I had to go back and dig up my box of research to answer this.
See below:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Brad DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:02 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Alterman on Chomsky
>
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Well, the point of my article was (years ago--a sidebar to
> an article about
> >Holocaust Denial on campus) to independently go back and see
> if Chomsky's
> >critics and Chomsky's claims stood up to independent
> verification. For the
> >most part Chomsky's claims won out, but not entirely. So there
was a
> >purpose in refuting most of his critics but exploring where
> there were some
> >legitimate criticisms.
>
>
> And am I right in thinking that you hold the (entirely reasonable)
> belief that Pierre Vidal-Naquet is justified in feeling on some
level
> betrayed, but that the others--the Dershowitzes, the Cohns, et
> cetera--are (as they seem to be to me) total garbage?
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
Cohn is certainly not worth consulting, his work is simply a vendetta. Most of the other critics who claim that Chomsky's anti-Zionism is linked somehow to a presumption of antisemitism also seem to ignore the available evidence.
As for Vidal-Naquet, better research but still flawed. As Chomsky points out, there is plenty of evidence in his (Chomsky's)work that he abhors the Nazi genocide and opposes antisemitism. Vidal-Naquet makes a number of assumptions that just don't pan out under scrutiny, especially his assumptions about Chomsky's motives. But Vidal-Naquet is grasping at several points I think I make better in my article, and in several paragraphs his complaints are justified, but seldom his overbroad conclusions about what Chomsky is "really" up to.
-Chip