Did you see the edit? Now, here’s your answer: no, it is not gibberish. I’ll explain the reasoning.

If we stick to that thread alone, there are at least two possible explanations for why the mod acted that way:

1. the mod simply didn’t see the page OP linked. They saw one user behaving poorly, another being superficially polite, and banned the one behaving poorly (the OP), without noticing the other was defending the IDF. or
2. the mod saw the linked page, deemed it OK, banned OP because he’s defending the Palestinians, and used their behaviour as excuse.

There are more, but let’s stick to those two. Both enable someone who’s doing genocide apology. In both, the mod is being an enabler. But only #2 counts as condoning that genocide apology. #1 is simply being damn sloppy.

However, based on the mod actions in a single thread, we have no grounds to know if it’s #1 or #2. And we shouldn’t assume. You don’t accuse people based on assumptions.

Here’s where the edit comes in. What I said above doesn’t apply because it’s common knowledge that the LW admins+mods do jack shit against Zionist apologia. That’s why I retracted my point - because it isn’t how the mod acted in that thread, it’s a consistent behaviour across multiple threads.

Is this clear now? TL;DR: I was saying “OP, bring up more evidence before you accuse someone”, then “nevermind, the evidence is public knowledge”.

See edit.