I have noticed over the years that there is a major play at trying to redefine words in order to control narratives. Two examples of words that are losing their original definitions, are terrorism and Semitic. There was a bombing in an Ontario Indian restaurant a few days ago and they keep mentioning that they don't believe it is terror related. When did bombings ceace to be terrorism? Do terrorists need to be brown now, in order to be considered terrorists? Also the term Semitic used to refer to all Semetic people who speak a Semetic language, which not only includes Hebrew, but languages like Maltese, Aribic and Aramaic among a few others. In its original definition practically any hate or prejudice towards someone of Middle Eastern decent, was antisemitic.
I do not think this is necessarily deliberate redefinition to control narratives (although that certainly does happen at times). Language evolves naturally, sometimes unfortunately misused words become the commonplace understanding of a term, or meaning entirely inverts.
Random example: "inconvenient" in Middle English meant "inappropriate" or "unseemly" and now it means "causing trouble, difficulties or discomfort". Meaning shifts like this aren't related to a specific agenda, but just to organic evolution of usage.
Terrorism's current meaning is "unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims". So I think saying a bombing is not terrorism isn't saying that it doesn't engender terror or isn't terrifying, but that it is not politically motivated or intended to control political action. On the other hand, if enough people start understanding and using "terrorism" as you are, then the understood meaning will eventually evolve toward "a violent or destructive act that causes people to be terrified or traumatized, especially if performed by persons of color".
I understand that not all Jews are semitic, and not all semitics are Jews, so I've never really understood how "anti-semitic" became equated with "xenophobic or racist concerning Jewish people" but from what I can find about it online this equivalency with "Jew-hatred" has been in place since about 1879 when it was promulgated (ironically, in Germany), in an effort to come up with a scientific-sounding, sanitized alternative to the term Judenhass.
Good point Doug. Another thing that's happening is the blending of a once horrifying (and still horrifying) word like "rape" with a once annoying word like "sexist". They both are certainly bad but now they are viewed by many as the same thing. I believe that's why they had different definitions to begin with.
While logically the word antisemitic ought to apply to all people of middle eastern descent, in actual fact it has always only referred to hostility toward Jews. The English language, in which we drive on a parkway and park on our driveways, has many peculiarities.