I can absolutely guarantee it, because we can easily find statements that are far more specific than El Sayed’s statement that were included in South Africa’s genocide claim.
This statement by Yoav Galant was specifically talking about Hamas, not Palestine; yet it’s included in South Africa’s bullshit claim:
Or this even more directly 1:1 statement by Netanyahu where he calls Hamas “bloodthristy”:
So yeah, I’m not buying the claim that calling Palestinians, or really anyone except Jewish Israelis, “bloodthirsty” would fly outside of MAGA circles.
You mean, he didn’t say “This goes beyond Putin, Russians became bloodthirsty under his rule but it goes beyond him”? That’s a great example of not making it racist.
Palestine isn’t a country, so I don’t know why she would say that. In any case, I’m not going to be able to find the exact usage you’re looking for, give me a break. If that’s your standard, enjoy your RO.
El-Sayed didn’t say Isreal was bloodthirsty before Netanyahu. He said the aparthied problem predated Nenanyahu.
The bloodthirsty quote is tied to Netanyahu and the current conflict. On August 5, 2026, El-Sayed stated that Israeli aggression extended beyond Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though he noted Netanyahu was a major reason why actions had become “so aggressive and frankly so bloodthirsty under his reign.”
This is the quote you’ve been referring to (I think). It doesn’t say “bloodthirsty”
“Don’t forget that we’ve been talking about an illegal apartheid regime for a very, very long time, and that supersedes Netanyahu himself,”
He did say “they’ve gotten so aggressive and frankly so bloodthirsty under [Netanyahu’s] reign”, the they in context meaning Israel.I agree with RitterSport that this is within uncontroversial commentary using the word “bloodthirsty” and we’re not going to find a verbatim equivalent to prove it one way or another but he doesn’t couch it as just “actions”.