Exactly right.
People might think they’re not anti-Semitic, but there’s no other way to interpret it, once allowance has been made for cases of utter thoughtlessness.
Just a few points for clarification:
1.) The case in question itself has nothing to do with Judaism. It was about medical MALPRACTICE (bleeding afterwards) in the case of a MUSLIM boy. It should be mentioned that this case is about ISLAM.
2.) The appellate court struck down the first ruling, which cited amongst e.g. peer pressure amongst muslim boys as a legitimate reason for a circumcision. The appelate court argued that once mature a Muslim can still be circumcised, but that way he doesn’t have to should he choose to become a Catholic instead.
3.) There is hardly any chance this ruling will stand when it comes before the Federal Constitutional Court (Germany has half a dozen supreme courts, like e.g. the Federal Court of Justice for criminal law or - as mentioned above - the Federal Constitutional Court for Constitutional Law). The FCC usually is very pro religious freedom (e.g. see 2002 case: animal rights vs. kosher slaughter).
Personally I do believe that circumcisions are OK, but that’s more of a gut feeling. I do see how it is a difficult question legally. There is a difference between vaccinations - which are based on solid science - and circumcision, which there is no real medical imperative for.
What if Scientology suddenly demanded the removal of a toe? Living with 9 toes doesn’t really disable you, just like living without a foreskin. Would that also be OK? It does prevent Onychomycosis, after all.
So in my personal opinion it boils down to a.) tradition and b.) the minor severity of the procedure which IMHO are enough to justify it.