Frankly, yes. Here's the context of his reply to Rosenthal:
As you can see he's not making an observation, he's comparing Rosenthal's notion that Palestinians should make do with Jordan to the (in his view) equally fallacious and provocative idea that Jews should make do with New York. He poses it as a rhetorical question to which he already knows the answer: Rosenthal, you, I and the Times would rightly consider that statement antisemitic. That's precisely his point.
As for the second quote, the context here is Chomsky arguing against Herrnstein's postulation that a just society must naturally and necessarily become stratified on the basis of intellect (as defined by IQ). His argument is three pronged - motive, value, byproduct. As part of this argument Chomsky alludes to how justifying one's seat atop society on the basis of IQ is disturbingly reminiscent of 19th century anthropological justifications for slavery. His argument in the passage in question is that even if we grant (he doesn't) that the subject under scrutiny (e.g. race based IQ) has scientific value this doesn't necessarily mean that the work should be undertaken. Social effects must be taken into account and just undertaking the research might serve to advance unconscionable public policy and reinforce pre-existing stigmas. Later arguments concentrate on the fact that he doesn't think that these subjects have any scientific value anyway and that any results from them fail to rise above the trivial.
Here are the pertinent paragraphs that shed light on your Chomsky quote (
pg 382, here):
There is nothing in Rosenthal’s article that warrants such comparison. Why not stop at the statement that Jews don’t need Israel because they already live in New York? It would still be weird, comparing multicultural city and national state…but what is the point of antisemitic slur? You can 100 % disagree with Rosenthal’s position and make arguments against it. But to argue that his statements are basically of the same nature as the classic antisemitism is absurd in my opinion. To me it is as he almost looks for an excuse to bring up antisemitic card for no apparent reason.
The second quote, for me the key is the wording of parentheses – “as might conceivably be the case”, which he later (or earlier?) changed to “an empirical question, no doubt”. I have my interpretation why that happened. So frankly, the context didn’t change much. He knows how to use words and he certainly knows how to formulate ideas which wouldn’t directly point to him.
However, it is not only about two quotes. There are many pieces that paint the big picture. Chomsky debated Rudy Rochman three years ago. He was asked by the moderator about the Khazar theory, a deeply antisemitic myth that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars in Caucasus and therefore have no historical connection to the Land of Israel. He claimed that it is not antisemitic, but rather a fact. When pointed out, that DNA research disproved his claim, he dismissed it again, as it doesn't really matter in current world, Jews are Jews.
Here you can verify if such discussion even took place and what is the full context.
Other instances, whether its various forms of connection with neonazis under the false pretense of absolute freedom of speech or misinterpretation of historical events (e.g. Hebron massacre 1929) fall into that category as well.
Speaking in a broader sense he has been wrong on more than one occasion. It is not me saying. It is not any pro-Israeli person saying. It is not an American saying. It is his fellow philosophy colleague,
Slavoj Zizek. What was the follow up? Chomsky accused Zizek of being racist,
says Zizek.
But maybe even Zizek isn't enough.
I will stop with
Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and other like-minded intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine war by a group of Ukrainian academic economists, but that is maybe for another thread already.