The half-baked insinuations and defamations that you write here tempt one to wonder why you did not have the good sense to keep your mouth shut.

Benhabib at least made arguments that were supported by some degree of evidence and reasoning. You failed to rise even to this low standard. To what end?

Yes, Benhabib talks a lot about Hamas, and the letter barely mentions Hamas. Are you too ill-informed, however, to understand that any ceasefire must be considered in light of how Hamas may use it to strengthen its control over Gaza and the people therein? And that by neglecting to even address the issue the letter at least potentially provides implicit endorsement of Hamas (that it actually does is what Benhabib claims)? Benhabib might be wrong but this is hardly a non-sequitur or flight of fancy. If it is wrong, it is wrong in a way deserving of a response.

The only thing which is easily seen to be indefensible is your reply itself: favoring bluster and posturing over even a semblance of an argument.

If, for instance, a ceasefire is to happen in Gaza on the basis of any sort of discussion instead of political calculus, it will be because people ignore your counterproductive advice, talk through the issues, and obtain sufficient moral clarity and understanding of tradeoffs to proceed.