Theodore Dalrymple's generally excellent article does not do full justice to Arthur Koestler's greatest virtue, which was courage. Also, his description of the nature of Koestler's Communist affiliation does not match the recently discovered and published letter of resignation that Koestler sent to his Comintern masters after the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. That letter contains not the emotional charge of a religious dispute, but a rational and deeply nuanced moral argumentation.

Koestler published the strongly pro-Zionist tract "Thieves In The Night" in 1946, many years after he left Palestine. That early departure also had to do with his frustration with the provincialism he encountered, which he contrasted (unreasonably, by some measures) with life in the major European cities.

Arthur Koestler was the most important figure in my political/moral development in my late teens in the 60s. I read it all, though I laboured merely loyally with the post-political works. I have rarely read an essay which is as perceptive, and as sensitive to the combination of courage, nobility and wildness in his complex, angry, formidable, and brilliantly insightful character. That character is so easy to vulgarize, but in doing so all that is most important is shredded. On the other hand, he did what he did. Your essay holds all the ends together, without trivializing either to laud or condemn either.