Pikergate is one of the most annoying things in our online discourse and it's a totally self-inflicted wound for Democrats. People don't have to like Piker or agree with him. But that's the point of a big tent. There are Democrats who support what Israel did in Gaza and don't seem bothered by large numbers of civilians being killed or the deliberate attempt (as stated explicitly by Israeli leaders) to make Gaza uninhabitable, which seems to me to be worse than anything Piker has said. What makes it worse is that they're in positions of power and have used their power to provide cover for Israel's atrocities. But no one is saying that they shouldn't or can't be Democrats. Some of them are leading figures in the party. That's just the way it's going to be, as much as we might dislike it. Piker's most objectionable remark in recent weeks has been not too different from what @neeratanden has said about Netanyahu's actions making Jews in America less safe (see below). It's an obvious point to make. If people who claim to speak in the name of a religion do awful things it endangers members of that religious community. Just like how when Muslim extremists commit horrific acts in the name of Islam, it endangers Muslims. This isn't rocket science. But somehow Piker is seen as disqualifiable. It just doesn't make much sense to me. But "moderate" Democrats (who are actually out of step with the median voter on Israel-Palestine) have made Piker into the be-all and end-all of inter-factional fights, and they've hurt their own party in the process by putting the attention on Piker when the attention presumably should be put on beating Republicans.