"concerns by the native population about what a Jerusalem in which they are in the minority would look like" is a horribly slanted way to describe unfounded accusations that Jews are going to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque. That is not "concerns". That's fearmongering and you need to stop whitewashing what was happening.
By that measure, all the unfounded bases are "concerns by the native population". Since the Diaspora, antisemitism is, at its core, a fear of a sizeable foreign presence. Jews are, by their nature, in perpetual exile as long as they don't assimilate. They were looked upon as foreigners wherever they went.
So all of the unfounded antisemitic accusations, whether the blood libel, Protocols, or destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque, is at its heart a very simple primal fear: the Jews are foreigners who don't understand our ways and they are going to change our culture in a way we don't like. The specific accusations can vary from place to place, and the specific abuses heaped on Jews can vary from place to place. But the core root of antisemitism (much as the core root of any sort of cultural intolerance) is the same: fear of the foreign invader.
I think anybody who sincerely believed that the Al Aqsa Mosque was threatened is someone willing to believe facts about Jews for which there was absolutely no evidence. They may not have been as actively antisemtic as the Mufti, who was fanning the flames, but they were as antisemitic as someone willing to believe the blood libel or the Protocols.
In essence, in the absence of any actual evidence, they were willing to believe the worst about the Jews. That certainly fits within my definition of antisemitism.
