To me the answer is an unequivocal yes!
The question "Could the remarks be reasonably construed as being anti-Semitic?" is different from the question of "Did the remarks rise to the level where they in fact WERE anti-Semitic?" On that second question, I must assume the answer is no. Because, if the remarks and speakers of the remarks were in fact anti-Semitic, then there is no defamation. Truth of statment is a defense to the civil claim of defamation, and these people won their suit against the ADL. The conclusion of the court is that the ADL defamed the plaintiff.
Further, in this case, the award was triple what was sought, which indicates to me that the court applied special damages, punitive in nature.
Now, you may disagree with the outcome, and your diffference then is with the court.
And with the facts. And with the law.