Your arbitrary declaration that he "quite clearly understands" the zombie argument do nothing to show that he does.

This is true. My arbitrary declaration of comprehension is very nearly as meaningless as your claim to the contrary. The two combined do serve to at least establish controversy. That means readers are reminded to think critically about what they read and arrive at their own judgement through whatever evidence gathering mechanisms they have in place.

I know many philosophers, on both sides of the debate about zombies, and consciousness in general, who would say that Eliezer's claims are in a standard class of amateur misconstruals of the zombie argument.

I know many philosophers who would indeed dismiss Eliezer's position as naive. And to be fair the position is utterly naive. The question is whether the sophisticated alternative is a load of rent seeking crock founded on bullshit. (And, on the other hand, I also know some philsophers whose thinking I do respect!)