We didn't say, for example, that the the North Korean invasion of the South was so small in comparison to what Hitler or Tojo did that we didn't need to worry about it. We didn't ignore, say, the Greek Civil War because it wasn't on the scale of WWII.
And in fact, we didn't say that Pearl Harbor was a small thing in comparison to what was going on in Europe or to our own Civil War of the 1860s.
Political argument, especially among academics, tends to get away from basic realities. We see in views we oppose the extreme case, and present our own views as moderate, sensible, and rational. But our views may be wrong or foolish and only look wise in comparison to the exaggerated straw man we have invented.
FWIW, David Bell is the son of Daniel Bell, a very wise sociologist, but one who had the misfortune of predicting The End of Ideology in 1960, on the eve of the rise of the New Left and a period of great ideological conflict. I daresay his son ought to have learned a lesson about scholars' pronouncements on public questions from the difficulty his father's prediction caused him.
But really, one guy's opinion, however misguided, isn't cause for great outrage or harassment. It ought to be enough to point out where he's wrong and get to what's really important.
Not "eye for eye," but stop it at the beginning.