As you say -

"That being said, I think that it's a dicey kind of game to have that kind of person spouting his rot. I understand, on the one hand, being a civil libertarian myself, that it's important that heinous points of view not be squelched, but on the other hand, I just wonder what that kind of thing actually brings to the debate."

I suppose if you try hard enough you can find a foul-mouthed hate-monger (probably a provocateur). It's more honest to find the BEST presentation of an idea you disagree with. In this case, it's the writings of Kevin MacDonald. I was stunned when I first read someone so scholarly from the far right, but not surprised to see the left and the Zionists united against him, as it confirmed my hypothesis.

This comment of yours gets to the crux of the issue we were discussing on the Atzmon thread at Steve Walt's blog:

"I have no problem, e.g., with honest anti-Zionism, which I think characterizes (sadly) only a small portion of the rhetoric on display at any given time. Much anti-Zionist rhetoric, as I'm sure you're aware, crosses the line right into anti-Semitism without giving it much of a thought."

No, actually, I'm not aware! On the contrary, I think fear of 'crossing the line' is more of a problem than actually doing so. The Palestine solidarity movement is paralyzed with fear of being anti-Semitic. Contrast this with the anti-apartheid movement - it wasn't worried about being anti-white. In fact, it contained a faction which wanted to ethnically cleanse white people from South Africa.

Here's the latest from Atzmon. He's beginning to adopt the 'anti-anti-fascist' position:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-supremacism-revisited.html