I keep asking people to not just judge the absolute letter of the law in terms of offensive pass interference but to judge it in the context of what normally goes on in these situations. And I feel that the large majority of the time, that call doesn't happen. Now I know appealing to authority doesn't make something right, but I want to point out that I am far from the only person who thinks so. Just to give you an example, ESPN.com is running one of their multi question polls about the officiating in the game. When I filled it out, it was polling 75% in favor of people who thought it should have been a non-call. Skip Bayless agrees. So does Bill Simmons. So does Michael Smith. So does the guy at Slate.com. So does Steve Young. So does Michael Irvin. So does John Madden.

I only bring all that up to point out that the idea that it is a clearly correct call, which King has been making, doesn't seem to stand up. A lot of people think it wasn't a good call. They might all be wrong, but at least give me that its questionable.

Penalties happen in a context of other calls throughout a game and a season. I'm sure you can find a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. I'll do you one better-- by the absolute textbook definition of the rule which you all keep harping on, you could call DEFENSIVE pass interference on that play.

The point is that all calls involve some judgement, and its important that the judgement is enforced equally across the league. I hate to bring up the cliche, but holding could be called on every play, right? But its not because there is an understanding of what constitutes holding, even if that means that a lot of plays that could technically be called holding go uncalled. The same thing applies with pass interference; you can apply the rulebook selectively to an individual play and say that there is a penalty there. But if that play is enforced differently from most every other similar play (and I believe it was), then thats wrong.

And that, friends, is the state of the debate: When someone argues against the Israeli state, label that person anti-Semitic. It stops the debate, ends the argument. It advances nothing, says nothing. It ridicules and belittles without any connection to the actual opinions of the person who is arguing.

There are some things that I'd like to say, in a debate: Never did I say that I hate Israelis or hate Jews. Never did I suggest anything of the sort. I hate oppression. I hate it that a group is horrifically abused because they are a religious and ethnic minority. I hate it that half of a country's population is denied any citizenship rights. I hate it that our country's dialogue has been so poisoned by rhetoric that you can't take exception to the treatment of people who are being assaulted by a government. None of that changes this: I hate anti-Semitism. I hate Hamas for killing Israelis. I hate terrorism. I hate religious extremism. I hate suicide bombs. I hate all the violence and the blood shed in the name of Islam. And yes, I hate it when Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian children, and when they bulldoze Palestinian homes. I hate that too.

If we were having a debate, I'd make a couple of other points. I'd point out that, as I said, I believe in the existence of an Israeli state. I believe in the need for a homeland for Jews. What I don't believe in is any county granting special rights to one group of citizens and not to others. I don't believe in classes of citizens, particularly when those classes are divided along racial lines. I don't believe in theocracy; I don't believe mullahs should make laws in Iran, and I don't believe rabbis should make laws in Israel. I believe in Israel. I just want it to respect all humans equally and to deliver equal rights and protections to everyone in its borders, regardless of their ethnic, racial, and religious identification.

I'd like to say all that. But I can't. Because when you said that I hated Jews, when you reduced the nuance and complexity of my argument to anti-Semitism, you stopped the debate. You ended the argument. All thats left is name calling and recrimination. The call of anti-Semitism is the magic bullet for people who want to stop anyone from supporting Palestine-- you can use it in any situation, at any time. Just call them a bigot, and you're done.

And thats it. Thats where the argument ends. After that theres not progress, no understanding, nothing.