For those who readily wish Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn to press on despite danger of a lawsuit. You are giving him very dangerous advice. While I believe that he would be offered some sort of protection on account of Israeli privacy laws, on the other hand he can be in serious danger and here is why.
I realize that I asserted in a previous comment that I believed( and to a certain extant still do) that he has been trolled. However, given the way things have unraveled and that through phone conversations as admitted that he owns this blog, and that his only true defense would be to lie and say that he doesn't, something I don't believe he would do as an Orthodox Jew, we come down to the greater problem of his potential liability.
Having not fully navigated the Israeli system I will leave that out for now, in part because my knowledge there is lacking, and secondly because that is not the only place that he is liable to damages.
I will start with the US. Under US and European law libel is, "the printed communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". Pursuant to that the Supreme Court Rulings of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, have served to limit and define the limits of free speech in printed media.
Furthermore Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., as well as Congressional Act 47 U.S.C. § 230(the Cyberlibel law) did two primary things of which the owner of this blog has to concern himself. First it made owners of moderated blogs liable for the postings of their commentators as well as their own postings. Secondly it allowed for libel suits where ever said material was or had been viewable. In other words within the US you would be open to the possibility of being sued 50 separate times.
Then we can move on to Europe most especially nations such as England, France, and Spain which have Universal Jurisdiction laws, allowing plaintiffs who are not present within their borders to file complaints against those who are not present within their borders. All three also allow someone to be tried in abstentia for such civil cases. To put that into plain English a lawsuit can be filed there, and if R' Eidensohn is not able to make a defense in those nations he may be found guilty without ever being able to offer a defense.
Furthermore both in the US and England the person in question does not need to be specifically mentioned but only indirectly, but knowingly referenced.
If these things cannot be undeniably proven you have once again opened yourself to the possibility of lawsuit on an international scale if the referenced person truly wishes to pursue such action. As a moderated blog, even allowing comments like that to go up, you open yourself to the possibility of lawsuit, as you have to approve them. To elevate them to a main post with no substantial proof shows your endorsement and can be considered "real malice" as "real malice" is defined in US and European law as disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.
If you want to be successfully sued for libel than by all means follow the advice of Jersey Girl. Otherwise perhaps it is time to take more care in what commentators post and what you as the blog owner allow them to post.
Perhaps these latest problems, though I will admit that there was an aspect of bullying to them, especially in the requirement to remove any and all mention, despite that though, perhaps it was Hashem's way of saying it is time to clean it up.