Well, the short answer is, no. There is nothing inherently antisemitic about wanting to save innocent babies from having part of their penis chopped off. However, speaking as a man who is recovering from circumcision I can tell you there are a LOT of intense feelings out there about circumcision as well as antisemitism-- both justified-- and that is what has fueled this debate.
For most guys once they realize what they've really lost due to their circumcision, once they stop seeing that poor exposed, desensitized, centurion-shaped glans as the norm, they start to get angry. We start to ask, "Why was this done to me?" or "Who in their right mind could ever think circumcision was a good idea?" or "What gave you the right to decide what parts of my body I got to keep?" and so forth. I personally felt frustrated my parents had not protected me from circumcision, but I also placed some blame on the man that performed the actual removal of my foreskin. I felt a great deal of anger for this man and briefly considered tracking him down to confront him and ask why he thought he had the right to do this and to make sure that he knew I was not happy about it and blamed him. When I asked my mother who performed my circumcision she claimed it was Dr. so and so but he had already passed away. (I don't really see how she could know that. It's not like they exchanged Christmas cards or something. She just wanted to take the wind out of my sails in the hopes I'd just let the whole thing drop. I can understand that I suppose. My mother has a hard time admitted ANYTHING she does wrong so it's important to her to keep circumcision as far as possible outside the realm of potential conversation. But I digress.) The point is I was angry at the guy who cut me without my consent.
I began to feel anger toward any doctor who would do this regardless of parental consent. My anger toward doctors who circumcise only intensified when I heard about Doctors Opposing Circumcision and felt vindicated in my belief that physicians ought to be thoughtful enough and ethical enough to refuse to perform such a procedure. Then, eventually, I started to think about a friend of mine, Greg, who is Jewish. I thought of him being circumcised by a mohel and then of arranging his own son's circumcision by a mohel and I felt anger towards, wait for it...the mohel, not Greg or his faith or synagogues or the Old Testament or the Talmud or Passover or the Star of David or anything having to do with Jewishness outside of the circumcision ritual. My anger extended to the mohel alone. Do Greg's parents deserve some responsibility as well? Yes I believe they do, as do my own parents. The fact that they made the decision to circumcise based on religious reasons makes it no more or less defensible than the reasons my parents gave. It's still violence. The cutters likewise bare the same ethical responsibility for their actions be they mohels or MDs or both.
There are two problems I see here:
1) It's dangerous to label an entire movement antisemitic until you know what it's really about. This label can unfortunately become an effective smokescreen to keep people from having to deal with hard facts that people like Jonathan Friedman speak so eloquently about. (please see http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/on-circumcision-authority-and.html)
The other issue is that I'm guessing mohels have the same inability for self-reflection that doctors who perform circumcisions do. No one wants to look back on their life's work and think, "Wow, I should never have done that. I HARMED all those children." Most of us humans are hard-wired to avoid this kind of internal criticism at all costs. It's part of our innate drive for self-preservation.
2) It's dangerous for people who are angry about their own circumcision to mistakenly believe that all Jewish people believe in circumcision or to believe that antisemitic sentiment (IE Hatred) is a constructive response to circumcision. Such sentiment should and will be rooted out and destroyed within the Intactivist movement in the few, isolated instances where it does exist.
I don't have a crystal ball and maybe this is wishful thinking but I believe that someday circumcision will be outlawed in the US, that religious freedom does not trump the rights of the individual, that babies deserve to be protected by the state, indeed if you ask me the state has a "compelling interest" in the legal sense to do so. These babies can sign up for circumcision at age 18 if at that point they are convinced it is an integral part of being Jewish or Muslim or whatever. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No Intactivist wants to prohibit the free exercise of Judaism or Islam, but dammit, if the Mormons can give up polygamy and still be Mormon, can't the Jews and Muslims still be Jewish and Muslim without circumcision? After all, we're not saying the boys can't sign up for a real bona fide circumcision ritual when they're 18. Is it my fault the mohels are going to have a hard time recruiting people at that point?
Thankfully many Jewish people are speaking out against circumcision and refusing to continue the perpetration of this violence on their own children as are many circumcised non-Jews like myself. The intactivist movement is one of the most welcoming I have ever participated in. Anyone who believes cutting infant penises is wrong is welcome to join regardless of religious, political, or any other affiliation. Besides these babies don't care what kind of God the person cutting them worships. All they know is that it HURTS!