Perhaps, in today's usage, it is best to stick with "judeophobic". BTW, true conservatives rarely use the word "racism", preferring instead the traditional term "prejudice", unless of course they are referring to "preferences".
Your word "anti-semantic" is too confusing to be coined into usage.
"Judeophobic" is pretty good! Perhaps, like "infidel-challenged" or "differently zealous". I'll keep that in mind. As for anti-semantic, that was a quick pun that died lonely. Like a proverbial lead balloon!
The point was supposed to be that an increasing number of self-described conservatives are ignoring the evidence of documented Al Quaida admissions that Iraq is hurting them badly, and instead accepting as gospel the Media campaign that the sacrifices of our forces in Iraq are in vain.
I've seen an increasing number of pundits on "our side" pepper their statements with supposed "fact", and seldom are called on it.
Does the fact that Israel has finally had enough, somehow negate our strategy of drawing in terrorists, trained over the years to attack U.S. civilians, into an area where they will face not civilians, but rather our armed forces ready and quite able to destroy them?
Is the fact that they cannot withdraw from Iraq now without terrible loss of face, somehow a proof that we erred in taking down the man who funded them?