Anyway, the quotes you found most offensive were those in the original post. And they were arguable.
St. Basil takes a very negative view of war, although he says sometimes it can be pardonable (eg. doing something wrong and then being forgiven for it).
Then, Gebre wrote that he agreed with some words of Fr. Harakas and he quoted them. Gebre did not say he agreed with everything on the topic. I could find a quote from a Church father on the Psalms, say I agree with the church father who says "_____". Yet that would not mean I agree with everything he wrote on the subject. Here, Fr. Harakas wrote about the Church father's negative view on war, and Gebre agreed with that.
As you pointed out, Fr. Harakas went on to make a more positive assessment of war:
Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries.
Yet even here, Fr. Harakas said war "can" be seen as necessary, not that it is necessary.
Plus, one can reasonably argue that holy people should not engage in a large evil, even if it is "necessary". Faced with an order by an inquisitor to convert from the faith, it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. And yet we are not to do it anyway. Granted, the Church takes a more positive view of war than of a forced apostasy, but my point is that something being necessary does not make it OK.
So when it comes to St. Basil and Gebre's discussion of Fr. Harakas, it is arguable.
One possible problem with the quote from Fr. Harakas could be if Gebre is paraphrasing his words, but then putting it in quotation marks. But anyway picking it apart seems to be way overblown. We are not talking about a work by a Harvard professor, but probably the commentary on peace and life by a down to earth convert to Oriental Orthodoxy.