Ah, I see your problem.
You think anti-semitic is the joining of two words to mean something different instead of meaning anti (against) the second part (semitic).
The same as anti-man or anti-woman could mean people who do not like tomatoes.
What do you think manhole means?
It doesn't matter what the two separate words mean. Antisemitism has been defined by a globally recognised organisation, which nearly everyone is happy to adopt, except you. You only refuse to accept it on the basis that two separate words mean something different.
If a globally recognised organisation defined antiwoman or antiman to mean people who do not like tomatoes, and nearly everyone was happy to adopt that definition, then it could mean people who do not like tomatoes.
Obviously it doesn't because a globally recognised organisation has not defined it as such. It's another example of your resort to absurdity, just like your previous ant - giraffe absurdity.
That's the beauty of social construction. It describes the process of shared assumptions about reality. Anyone who refuses to accept the shared assumption is the one who is out of step. Do you also deny social construction is a real occurrence?
What does 反猶太主義 mean? It's another example of a social construct event.
Manhole has a shared assumption of reality for an opening for people to enter the drainage, but it's not limited to men and everyone accepts that.
If we take the word apart, it could mean a a hole that only a man can enter, or a hole in a man, or a man-shaped hole, or any other imagined meaning.
If I describe you as a trainwreck, you're not literally a crashed train.
Do you also refuse to accept the shared meaning of understand?