> 10% is definitely enough to presume that anybody who throws out an accusation of anti-semitism in defense of Israel is racist by default.

I'm really trying to parse your logic, and failing.

If I understand it, your chain of reasoning is:

1. Someone "defends Israel".

2. The way they do it in this specific case is by saying the other person is anti-semitic.

3. Because some people in Israel think fairly attrocious things and are racist, this implies that any defense of Israel is implicitly a defense of racism, therefore making the defender racist.

Is that the chain here? Basically, you can't defend a country in which 10% of people are racist, without yourself being racist?

If so, that chain of reasoning is pretty ridiculous. That's like someone saying they like the US, and you deciding they are racist, because in a 2013 poll, 17% of Americans were against interracial marriage. It's a huge and nonsensical logical leap to go from "some action that country X has done is OK" to "I therefore support what any subset, even as small as 10% of the country, thinks".