And yet he equates these actions

He equates parts of the actions - that they were retaliatory. That they both did immense harm to each community. No event is going to be 1:1 the same, 100% equivalent. That does not mean there isn't any value in considering similarities or using them as case studies to illustrate a point.

No, we don't know that at all... This is a long philosophical debate that includes affected ignorance, implicit bias and asymmetric information just to name but a few

All the more reasons intentions are a moot point to this particular discussion of real world events (9/11, Al-Shifa)?

How can you not see Harris's objection that Chomsky is ignoring intentions?

I think there is a difference between ignoring something and finding it a mitigating factor at best. Especially when it is something unverifiable like intentions in specific real world events.

clearly so far as Harris (and Kant) are concerned

Putting aside the irony of a 'new atheist' digging on Kant. In what universe is the Iraq War & the Al-Shifa bombing in line with any versions of categorical imperative??

But, okay, admittedly it's been a while since I've read up on it. Let's say Harris is saying, like Kant, intentions are key not consequences. Chomsky, in my opinion, is pointing out the shortcomings of this premise.

If you could point out to me exactly where Harris responds to this criticism in the correspondence - I'd actually really appreciate it [serious].