When you split the two parts of the word up, the truth comes out. One who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc. ie- the practices and actions of the Jews. Is that not a reasonable stance?

anti

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti

noun, plural an·tis.

a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Semite

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semite

noun

1 member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

2 Jew.

3 member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

However, when we look at the definition of anti-semite, a completely different picture is painted.

anti-Semite

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-semite

noun

a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

Why is that? Is it not perfectly reasonable to be opposed to the practices or actions of particular people. Why, when the two words are combined it is now discriminating, prejudiced and hostile? Why do they not include 1 and 3 from the Semite definition above?

What if their repeated actions or practices over many centuries warrant hostility and discrimination? Or at the very least, a bit of scrutiny? Why are there laws against antisemitism, but it's open season on whites 24/7/365?