I am obliged to point out the logical faults in Zach Ingber's '15 arguments. For example, he writes that American support for Israel furthers our "strategic interests," as well as our "core values," but he does not describe what these values and interests actually are, and how Israel might help us achieve them. In what way is Israel our "key partner in military and security operations"? I am not sure that we want to be a partner in military operations like Wednesday's strike on Gaza that killed two children along with a militant.
He also rejects comparisons between South Africa under apartheid and Israel because though "blacks were excluded from all civic life in South Africa, Israeli Arabs are fully enfranchised." This misses the point because Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are two different groups. Palestinians live in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli Arabs hold Israeli citizenship and live in Israel proper. We use the term "apartheid" to describe the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and oppression of the Palestinians living there, not the lives of Israeli Arabs. Furthermore, while Israel's democratic process is valid, the Palestinians who are ruled by the Israeli Army do not have a vote, making their situation disturbingly similar to that of apartheid-era black South Africans.
Describing Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as part of a budding Islamic caliphate trying to take over democracy is ludicrous. For a start, Hamas is Sunni, while Hezbollah is Shi'i, and the two organizations have never worked together. The first caliphs were democratically elected Muslim rulers who extended freedom of religion to their Jewish subjects. Not to mention the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah were both founded with the intent of ending Israeli occupation of their land, rather than conquering democracy.