Ok, last shot.
Imagine that scenario re-done in the context of Idi Amin's rule in Uganda. Amin's regime was responsible for the murder, torture and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Originally, Amin was a low-ranking officer in the British Colonial army. He went on to award himself the official title of 'His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshall Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa and Uganda in Particular'. In this case, no matter how perfectly apt it might be and no matter how horrible the subject, 'uppity' would still be a racist description for him because of its connotations for all black people.
We have repeatedly re-established on this thread that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic and that it doesn't matter if Israel finds criticism offensive because no one is exempt from being told the truth in case they're offended. I am pointing out that in a very specific context, a mode of criticism that would be acceptable in relation to Iraq, Russia, Cambodia, Syria etc. is not acceptable in relation to Jews or Israel because of serious historic prejudices, going back centuries, associated with that form of words that affects all Jews. It isn't particularly difficult to avoid blood metaphors while harshly criticizing Israel for its actions and to deliberately use them knowing all of the above is anti-Semitic.