Pitor, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do think there was some symbolic force in my act of removing hateful prayers from the year’s holiest holiday service. When writing the article, I thought of it as a kind of metaphor for the removal of Zionism from Jewish culture. In the last paragraph, I humbly tried placing it in a tradition of dramatic Jewish self-criticism that goes back to the Bible itself. I’ll leave it to you and other readers to judge whether or not I succeeded in leveraging my symbolic action in order to lend some rhetorical power to my piece examining a case of war-mongering in mainstream Jewish life.
Being a basically symbolic action, the taking of leftover prayers had nothing to do with sabotaging speech. As I made clear, I waited until congregants had already seen and taken the prayers. In other words, I didn’t directly prevent anyone from reciting the prayers. I did, however, get at least some people to reflect critically afterwards on the prayer and the militarist mentality it exemplifies.
Moreover, I didn’t remove the prayers merely because I disagreed with the cause they advanced. I removed them because the prayers advocate violence against Palestinians resisting an oppressive occupier. I argue in my article that my action adheres to Hillel’s rule: if in the future people catch me advocating violence to uphold oppression, then I want them to at least take a comparable symbolic action to call me out.
As an aside, I disagree with the suggestion you may have been making that the Golden Rule requires pacifism. In my article, I link to the naturalist and social theorist Peter Kropotkin’s piece “Anarchist Morality,” which explains how the Golden Rule can sometimes justify violence against oppressors. Basically, he argues that reasonable people would admit they wish to be resisted if they ever start oppressing others and especially if they start harming people close to them.