In any discussion about antisemitism, it seems the level at which people set the bar is indicative of their own sensitivity on the subject. For some, nothing short of advocating the extermination of all Jews qualifies, while for others, any criticism of Sharon might qualify. I haven't seen too much of the latter, mind you, but I have seen plenty examples of the former over the years, and one favorite tactic of antisemites is to portray the reactions to their antisemitism as being overly sensitive.
AS to whether Jews can also be antisemitic, I might offer the name of one Israel Shahak as an example of such, and so I reject the notion that Chomsky cannot possibly be an antisemite if based upon his ethnicity alone. His rhetorec is certainy suspect in my book, and shows such a lack of fairness as to indicate quite a bias. When people are obviously biased against the one Jewish state in the entire world, I would think it natural to question why, and especially as Chomsky indulges in apologia for the likes of Pol Pot, I certainly question his motivations.
Chomsky is certainly an intellectual, but that should not place him on a pedistal, nor does it mean that he is original in his "insights". In fact, his world observations are so predictable that I would think most other intellectuals would write him off as an idealogue rather than a truth seeker -- more of a propagandist than anything else -- and the fact that there are so many Chomsky clones in academia speaks more of ultraconformity and lack of intellectual honesty than it does anything inherently brilliant about his actual rhetorec. The man is a linguist, and while he is certainly a giant in that particular field, I would think this should give folks a clue as to how to deconstruct his rhetorec when he indulges in politics. He is a man who begins from the standpoint of promoting ideology and then uses his considerable linguistic skills in pursuit of influence rather than a man who views the world with an open mind.
It is the confluence of his own ideology with that of the Islamists (his authoritarian leftist hatred for anything associated with the west in alignment with the Islamist totalitarian hatred for the same) that gives rise to statements either bordering upon antisemitism or antisemitic depending upon one's sensitivity and point of view. Ideas tend to cross pollinate as it were, and it is through the admixture of the rhetorec of the Islamists and the authoritarian leftists where the antisemitic notions are spreading. Call it the new antisemitism if you wish, but while the uberleftist version may be more slippery than that of the right, and more Arabist in nature than classic European, I would think if people would just question a little more and accept without qualification a little less, they might see it too.
