My entire point was that an argument can be based on truths yet still be false. I don’t have to use the same fallacy. But going back to the article in question:

His individual points are hard to counter because they are based on a false narrative that western media is pro-Hamas and biased against Israel which is patently false.

Asserting that Hamas turned down every deal implies that Israel is working on good faith when it has a record of lies and treachery. I’m not equipped to tear down this whole charade but I could if it were important enough.

Pluralus has little integrity when it comes to debate. I’ve read nothing of this author that impresses me in slightest and I have no interest in dissecting the hollow and pointless statements.