I find the intro almost made me not want to read the article though, as it has this long segue dunking (in a way unrelated to the main point) on some arbitary person who made the mistake of the title.
E.g., '''"it’s more than a little presumptuous to then claim that people on Gessen’s (pro-Palestine) side of the argument are “just much better informed”'''
I don't know who Gessen is, and not knowing who they are, the authors take is, to me, odd and mean spirited. Gessen, at least as quoted in the article, isn't making the point that their side is "much better informed." They actually say that their friends (who support their side) are more informed than their wife's friends (who support the other side) on this particular topic. This is a judgement on two friendship groups that they (Gessen) have first-hand experience of.
Gessen also makes some later points about how people aren't appearing to think during the congressional hearing. But none of the quoted text reaches the arrogance of characterizing all of their side as enlightened and all opposition as ignorant.