Source: p 131, A Concise Introduction to Logic (12 Ed, 2014) by Patrick J. Hurley
The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque. In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person. [...]
Example: [1.] Secretary of State John Kerry argues that Israel should hold the line on new settlements in Palestine.
[2.] But Kerry is not Jewish, and he has never had any great affection for Israel.
[4.] Thus, his arguments are worthless.
Again, whether John Kerry is Jewish and whether he does or does not have any great affection for Israel have nothing to do with whether his premises support his conclusion.
The above does not appear fallacious, and instead appears to lack only a Suppressed Premise, which (when revealed) would validate the argument. What have I neglected?
3 below appears to me as the Suppressed Premise. If I insert 3 between 2 and 4, then the argument above becomes valid, correct? If so, what is fallacious?
[3.] Not revering Israel, non-Jewish people argue that Israel should hold the line ... in Palestine.
I already read this article.