while i did know of the ashkenazi jews, i did not look into the matter of the falasha jews (though now that i checked i did know of them but under a different name) and even though i do believe that there is more concerning the matter, i'm perfectly willing to go with your definition because it still wouldn't change my point at all. let me explain. there are two ways to define a jew, someone who is ethnically jewish and as such belonging to one of the four semite peoples, and one who is a practitioner of judaism. the jewish people who are ethnically jewish are in fact a race (i would welcome any argument to the contrary with as to how a distinct group whose members consist of one of the four semitic people are not in fact a race and how the repercussions of such an argument might apply to the arabs for example) and as such anti-semitism does indeed apply to this category of persons. your whole point is predicated on a jew merely being a practitioner of judaism yet the fact that there exists such a thing as being ethnically jewish blows your whole point out of the water (no offense). in order to make your case you have to show that the semitic people known as jews don't exist as a distinct race (this would be quite contrary to modern scholarship i might add) and not merely that intermarriage creates a subset of people whom are difficult to classify.
note: i don't believe that falasha jews are semites (if you can bring any evidence to the contrary this would be appreciated) and are jewish in virtue of being adherers of the jewish religion (though they did originate from jewish intermarriage with other peoples). as such, i have to concede none of your points. once again, the beta israel (the name under which i know them) may have jewish ancestors who were semites but this does not mean that they are semites and as such ethnically jewish. anti-semitism wouldn't necessarily apply to this group and when it would it would only be in the criticism of their religion.