I can't deal with everything you wrote as we are going way off topic. Probably Chomsky and Finkelstein do now accept the physical existence of Israel as a fait accompli, just as any rational realistic person now must.
They said the same thing about apartheid South Africa. By 'accepting the existence' of Israel as a Jewish state, like Chomsky and Finklestein, you have identified yourself as a Zionist. Believe it or not there are rational non-Zionists, Helen Thomas comes to mind.
I don't see this a reason for rejecting their contribution. I certainly don't see them as apologists. I disagree with Chomsky on this "denial" point, but I don't know how frequently he has made it, how strongly he feels it or his reasons for it. Not a problem. I'm not here to defend him.
The Chomsky quotes are the strongest condemnation of holocaust denial that I've seen. He wrote that holocaust deniers have 'lost their humanity' and should be shunned. What more does it take to convince you that he is an integral part of the conspiracy. He gives cover to every academic to silence questioning the hoax.
My point is that you will not encourage potentially sympathetic believers to question by taking a hard line. Take that hard line as your personal stance but don't require it of others. "He who is not for us is against us" will not make many converts. Bradley is taking the right line. When he speaks it is to defend the right to speak, not to push revisionism. The first step is to break the taboo, to get people to even consider your right to a view. It's a mammoth task in itself, and without it you can forget any other progress.
As I explained in my first or second post, I think you're wrong here. I'll go a little further. What is the strongest argument for the holocaust? I think it is that the academic community, people who study history for a living, hours on end, every day, for all of their lives, accept it 100% to a person (save Arthur Butz). What is the counter argument to that? That you, having perused a few web sites, know history better than they do? So, I think you have to counter the hoax directly, not only correct the historical account.
And I think the approach Bradley is taking is very ineffective. Now they boot him off campus before he even says the word holocaust. He whispers the word 'taboo' and the storm clouds form and he's outta there. He wouldn't dare say holohoax. What's the strength of this approach? Free speech is not the issue. The hoax is the issue. Look at what happened at UW at http://www.holohoax101.com/102/
You didn't mention Atzmon but here are a few quotes:
I did mention Atzmon and said he wasn't a denier. But now, seeing your quotes I think I could be wrong. I based my opinion on a email exchange I had with him. Sometimes I email critics of Israel suggesting that they have a look at the holocaust, and I try to make a few quick arguments to entice them. Atzmon responded, most don't, and said that he was taking his 'own path' or something like that, which I viewed as a cop out. But his quotes are pretty suggestive of denial.