─^≥&╞GS v≡WΦ%â─╕£$ P v≡WΦâ─â~t)Ä∞9&â>^uÄε9&â>`t╕ó$δ6╕º$δ1É╕¼$δ+ÉÄ≡9&÷▓t╕▒$ P v≡WΦ╠â─Ä≡9&÷│Çu╕╢$ P v≡WΦ▒â─╕╗$ P v≡WΦóâ─Ä≥9&â>Σ └≈╪¿t+╕ùÄ└&ÇΣ â~u:&íΣ ╣ùÄ┘#εëFΣ¿t╛δ&É╕ùÄ└δ┘É÷FΣt╛δÉïv■¿t
╛δ&ï6Σ â■└≈╪¿ t ╕╛$δ`É â~t6≈╞t╕├$ P v≡WΦâ─≈╞t╕╚$ P v≡WΦ√â─ï╞¿t3╕═$δ"É≈╞t╕╥$δÉ≈╞t╕╫$δ
Éï╞¿t╕▄$ P v≡WΦ┬â─Ä≡9&÷│Çtâ~tÄ⌠9&â>zu╕ß$ P v≡WΦòâ─╕µ$ P v≡WΦåâ─╕ε$ P v≡WΦwâ─╕≤$ P v≡WΦhâ─Ä÷9&â>j uÄΓ9&─ X&ïç╝&ïù╛δ╕⌡$î┌ëFⁿëV■RPÄ°9& 6⌠Ä·9& 6≥╕÷$ P╕P╕% P v⌠ v≥Üαα â─ v⌠ v≥ v≡WΦⁿâ─╕% P v≡WΦφâ─Äⁿ9& 6║& 6╕Ä■9& 6╛& 6╝Ä:& 6╢& 6┤╕#% P v⌠ v≥Üαα â─ v⌠ v≥ v≡WΦBâ─Ä:& 6╞& 6─Ä:& 6╩& 6╚Ä:& 6┬& 6└╕0% P v⌠ v≥Üαα â─ v⌠ v≥ v≡WΦ⌡â─╕=% P v≡WΦDâ─Ä:&í&&ï(Ç─0ü╥T|RP╕E% P v⌠ v≥Üαα â─ v⌠ v≥ v≡WΦ â─ v≡WÜ" α â─ï≡Äα9&á£$■P░PÜ╢] â─╟FΩ╕pPÜ╒ â─ëF÷ëV°ëv∞ë~εïv≥ v∞╕O% P v⌠VÜαα â─
■+└&ëG&ëë╛n Ä┌9&9ptHÄ▄9&9vt=╕PPÄ▐9& 6û& 6öÜ`┘â─╕æ% PÄ▐9& 6û& 6öÜZ┘â─ÜT┘δ╕╡% PÜ|α â─╗TÄ :ë₧■îå■&╟╕╨PÜ╒ â─ëF∞ëVε╕pPÜ╒ â─ëF≡ëV≥+└ëF÷ëF⌠èå{ ■å{ <vΘvâ~uZ 6`# 6^#╕└% P ╢~ VÜαα â─ ╕P ╢~ VÜ" α â─P ╢~ VÜJ] e allowed to confront one another if truth is to prevail.
There is therefore no obligation, in defending or asserting the right
to speak, to pass any comment on the truth or merit of what may be, or
is being, said. This is elementary.
Also rather unsafe is the injunction (employed above most crudely
by Vidal-Naquet's colleague Arno Mayer) to be careful of the use that
may be made of one's remarks or signatures. Elsewhere in the same
essay, for example, Vidal-Naquet asserts, "In the case of the genocide
of Jews, it is perfectly evident that one of the Jewish ideologies,
Zionism, exploits this terrible massacre in a way that is at times
quite. scandalous." <Scandalous>-- the same word that he attaches to
Chomsky's signature on a petition. But he supplies the corrective
himself-- "that an ideology seizes upon a fact does not make this fact
inexistent." Precisely. And the "fact" here is that Chomsky defended
not Faurisson's work but his right to research and publish it. Vidal-
Naquet undoubtedly knows better than to resort to the old Stalinist
"aid and comfort" ruse. Where, then, is the core of his objection?
Does this not leave Arno Mayer, also, in some difficulty? The
fact that neo-Nazis may have seized upon Noam Chomsky's civil-
libertarian defense does not, of itself, make that defense invalid.
Or, if it does, then by himself seizing upon what they have seized
upon, Mayer is "objectively" associating civil-libertarian principles
with the Nazis-- an unintended compliment that the latter scarcely
deserve. Vidal-Naquet's point about Zionism's exploitation of the
Holocaust could, if cleverly enough ripped from its context, be used
to support point (4) in Faurisson's "supplement" above. Who but a
malicious falsifier would make such a confusion as to who was in whose
<galere>?
I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate
falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's
purloined <avis> as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen
occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to
accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the
traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter
of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most-- speaking
up for the right of extremist academics like [Walter] Rostow, for
example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too
turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as
Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a
