Why can't Jonathan read?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 10:04 PM Share

Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait is in a lather about J Street, Ezra Klein, and me, mostly because we've independently suggested that unconditional and uncritical support for Israel might not be good for the United States or for Israel either. The essence of his argument is mostly guilt-by-association, but along the way he also hurls a barrage of nasty adjectives at my book with John Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby. And like some other critics, his comments suggest that he didn't bother to read it first.

To be specific, Chait says the book "portrays Israel as a force for evil throughout its existence." He offers no evidence to support that false claim. Had he read the book, here are some passages that might have given him pause.

There is a strong moral case for Israel's existence, and there are good reasons for the United States to be committed to helping Israel if its survival is in jeopardy" (p. 5).

The authors of this book are 'pro-Israel' in the sense that we support its right to exist, admire its many achievements, want its citizens to enjoy secure and prosperous lives, and believe the United States should come to Israel's aid it is survival is in danger" (pp. 113-14).

Israel's creation and subsequent development is a remarkable achievement." (p. 355).

My co-author and I were critical of some Israeli policies, while emphasizing that:

[We are] not focusing on Israel's conduct because we have an animus toward the Jewish state, or because we believe that its behavior is particularly worthy of censure. On the contrary, we recognize that virtually all states have committed serious crimes in their history. . . and that some of Israel's Arab neighbors have at times acted with great brutality" (pp. 80-81).

We also noted that:

almost all of the many gentiles and Jews who now criticize Israeli policies or worry about the [Israel] lobby’s impact find [anti-Semitic] views deeply disturbing and categorically reject them. . . They believe that Israel acts like other states, which is to say that it vigorously defends its own interests and sometimes pursues policies that are wise and just and sometimes does things that are strategically foolish and even immoral. This perspective is the opposite of anti-Semitism. It calls for treating Jews like everyone else and treating Israel as a normal and legitimate country. Israel, in this view, should be praised when it acts well and criticized when it does not....Americans who care about Israel should be free to criticize it when its government takes actions that they believe are not in Israel’s interest" (p. 195).

In short, Chait's characterization of our book is a fiction; he just made it up. He undoubtedly thinks that attacking us in this way will help keep Israel safer. He's wrong. The policy of unconditional and uncritical support that the New Republic has fervently defended for years isn’t working for either the United States or for Israel -- and plenty of other staunchly pro-Israel individuals -- e.g., Daniel Levy, Matt Yglesias, Roger Cohen, Ha'aretz editor David Landau, M.J. Rosenberg, Gershom Gorenberg, Gideon Levy, Akiva Eldar, Aaron David Miller, etc. -- have figured this out too.

Why is Chait so exercised? I think it's because he realizes the discourse about Israel in the United States is changing before his eyes, and that increasing numbers of people -- both Jewish and gentile -- now realize that a more normal relationship would be better for both countries. If Chait were a true friend of Israel, he'd agree.

EXPLORE:BOOK CLUB, NEW REPUBLIC, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL/PALESTINE

(19)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

PHIL K

10:22 PM ET

January 27, 2009

Israel Lobby

Another problem with this bash-without-reading is that it's self-reinforcing. If controversial books get bashed without first being read, nobody is going to stick their neck out and write on controversial subjects. Then we have a situation where the conventional wisdom is the only wisdom there is. Your own colleague Dan Drezner talked about this "post-Israel Lobby Chilling Effect" on Bloggingheads yesterday with Henry Farrell.

(video: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17390?in=30:29&out=31:31 )

GRAND SEN-OR

4:34 AM ET

January 28, 2009

Convensional wisdom...

I agree with you, one might have read what you have written, but just because he/she has a different (conventional) perspective he/she may not understand you and reduce your concepts and statements to conventional ones to criticize.
Similar things happenening here too towards my not so conventional postings in spite of my constent worning that the problems I am dealing with are conceptual not factual;->>

It always helps if you introduce the theory that you based your arguments. You have to disclose your axioms clearly and give a list of at least the key terms defined as part of your theory, also a list of terms which are un-defined as part of the theory would help a lot. In that way ou make yourself understood better and the grammatical structure that you have introduced makes deliberate distortions difficult. Even if they attempt to distort then you can easily refute their distortions showing that starting from the grammatical structure to drive such distortions are _not_ possible, therefore they don't make sense according to your theory. And challenge your opponent to show how he/she reached from the theory you based your arguments to such absurd, baseless statements.

In fact that is what you are trying to do by recalling some of the arguments that contradict the opponents claims, but if you do this in a formal fashion as I described above then you would save time on explaining your framework and discourage your opponents to distort your arguments by putting them in a position that they _have to_ show how they have reached to those results using your conceptual structure. In that case if they cannot show what you claimed then they may confess that they have reached those results not using your theory and terms but using their own theory and terms. And this would shift the battle-field to conceptual level where parties have to demonstrate that their theory is more uselful than the other's because one can explain the phenomena better and can make better predictions using it etc.;->

Grand Sen~or

FULANA

1:37 AM ET

January 28, 2009

I can hardly wait.

THECARDINAL

3:00 AM ET

January 28, 2009

Perception is Reality

I work in customer service, always have and the first thing I learned is as far as the public is concerned is that perception is reality. The perception and thus the reality is this - since your book came out I honestly do not recall you ever saying anything that could possibly be construed as supportive of Israel. Oh sure you insist that they have it has the right to "exist" but short of selling out and giving the Palestinians whatever they want you will never, ever agree with anything says or does - that is readily apparent.

I am not Jewish - another obsession of yours - or particularly concerned with the region. What I do know is this much of - what you write has been picked up and applauded by Jew bashers of left and right - that you can't deny. I faced first hand the racism of the Buchanan Brigades in the 90's and these same revolutionaries with pitch forks are your most ardent supporters as evidenced by your co-author's recent piece in American Conservaitve.

I have a profound respect for you and your previous work and your book isn't bad for a work that lacked primary sources or research. As someone who greatly admired both - your books and that of your co-author I have come to feel increasingly uncomfortable with your pronouncements and statements - it is almost gleeful bating of supporters of Israel and Jews. You are irresponsible with your attacks and sly protestations of innocence.

ANOTHER AMERICAN

3:13 AM ET

January 28, 2009

Why can't Stephen read better than Jonathan?

Professor Walt reads Chait as carelessly as he says Chait reads him.

Walt:

Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait is in a lather . . . mostly because we've independently suggested that unconditional and uncritical support for Israel might not be good for the United States or for Israel either."

But Chait wrote:

Israel's supporters do have a distressing tendency to define their position in maximalist terms."

Right-wing Zionism thrives on a sense of victimhood and encirclement. "

J Street, perhaps reflecting Ben-Ami's background in the Clinton administration and the Howard Dean campaign, shares the contemporary liberal obsession with rhetoric and framing. It's not a frivolous concern. Many Jews casually interpret "pro-Israel" to mean support for the Likud platform. Thus the answer to what is properly the subject of debate ("What is good for Israel?") is presupposed by a label."

J Street didn't merely suggest Israel's action [in Gaza] has gone too far--a notion I would endorse

Professor Walt may not care that his book with Professor Mearsheimer, which I have read, together with articles such as these, has persuaded many people, like myself, who combine support for Israel with unflinching hostility to the Greater Israel project -- as the old Peace Now slogan has it (in translation), Peace is Greater than Greater Israel -- that, when it comes to Israel and American Jews, he is, at best, careless with the facts and tendentious in his arguments.

SUHAILI

4:47 AM ET

January 28, 2009

face up

so what do YOU (another american) think of chait's problem?

this is chait: "My column disputed the notion that there truly was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation around any criticism of Israel's government."

isn't this all he's about? you must agree with him or you wouldn't so worked up:) but what's the big deal about fear or intimadation, if there's none? maybe you are not comfortable about this: israel had a recent, very recent military action (notice how neutrally put) that was/is condemned around the world (true?), but backed by yourself AND by what kind of percentage in our united states congress? you really think our congresswo/men don't care about the suffering of the palestinian people?

"bravado"(clait's condescending description of serious criticism not to his liking) is one word, courage is a totally different word. three years ago m/w’s “bravado” complain about undue connections between politics at home and policy/action abroad was turned down by elite mainsteam you know who, AFTER being Solicited by the same. happen don't think it's because they did not write in acceptible english or academic standard.

ANOTHER AMERICAN

11:32 AM ET

January 28, 2009

You seem to know what I think better than I do.

That is, you attribute views to me that I do not hold and have not expressed. That's not a very good way to start a conversation.

You wrote:

you must agree with him [Chait] or you wouldn't so worked up:

That's a leap. Chait hardly needs my defense. Nor was I defending him. Rather, I was making a point about Professor Walt's article.

israel had a recent, very recent military action (notice how neutrally put) that was/is condemned around the world (true?), but backed by yourself

So far, I haven't written a word about the "very recent military action." Here are two facts:

1. According to a recent CNN Poll:

Sixty per cent of those questioned in the CNN survey said that they sympathized with Israel, compared with 17 per cent in support of the Palestinians.

Sixty-three of Americans questioned thought that Israel's military action against Hamas was justified.

2. My own view is that Israel was entitled to respond to Hamas rocket-terror attacks, but I have questions about the prudence of the nature and extent of the response. My own sympathies, in terms of Israeli politics, lie with Peace Now and Meretz.

SUHAILI

11:59 AM ET

January 28, 2009

sorry

Sorry, my fault--i mean chait backed the last israeli invasion. not you, did not know your position on this. i was rather careless when writing. cnn polled americans--i said around the world. remember reading somewhere else polling on americans, majority were against the invasion. but forgot to note down who did the polling or the number. but don't you agree the public ARE rethinking at this time. if you are with Peace Now you should be happy, shouldn't you? sorry i did not sound too friendly. was worried for a long time about if US interests would be taken care of by its own government.

Basically, why so hypercritic over the two gentlemen, often not over things that matter.

SUHAILI

1:18 PM ET

January 28, 2009

about #1

don't know if you think this is reliable, but here is what richard silverstein said in the guardian (01/27/09):

Never has there been as strong a disconnect between Israeli perceptions of their actions against Palestinians and the world's. Eighty-five percent of Israeli Jews approved of the Gaza attack. Though no polls were done in the US at the end of the operation, based on earlier polls the majority of Americans opposed it.

so my recollections are until quite recently support for any israel actions was almost as strong among the american public as it was in the congress, where you know the drill.

ANOTHER AMERICAN

3:34 PM ET

January 28, 2009

As Silverstein does not

provide any sources, I really can't comment about his claims regarding public opinion. I would note, however, that Silverstein blogs at The Guardian's Comment is Free; he's not a Guardian journalist.

Moreover, when it comes to public opinion polls, it's important to know such things as the full text of the question, as well as when it was taken and the full text of other related questions that may affect a person's response.

SUHAILI

3:17 AM ET

January 28, 2009

good for you--stand up to bullies!

please note the "SPECIAL" relative we had (exclusive), is now a strong alley (not so exclusive) in presidential parlance. also love the subtle angle concentrating on the future of Palestine children in his first tv interview. how does one spin on that? Believe many of us are rejoicing over this change in discourse. And as we do we remember well of you, professor Walt, and Professor Mearsheimer. It’s already three years since your courageous paper was published, yet some are still at it, attacking with every accusation in their toolbox. This is testimony to the importance of your not at all “controversial” paper. So be proud! I was sorry that an earlier defense you put up did not allow comments--because I know way more people (than the handful of attackers)have been rooting for you, and you needn’t worry about these threadbare attacks.

I do have problem with people employ vacuous terms like controversial or conventional wisdom to denigrate a hard to assault stand and excuse an inexcusable position. Call it shading. one top example of such shading to me is starting every headline on mid-east conflict with “in response to Hamas rockets attack”. here you have it, a judgment/excuse is given before the facts are reported.

SETH EDENBAUM

4:30 AM ET

January 28, 2009

A Jewish state or a democracy?

For the rest of the world the fact that Israel was founded on racist principles is accepted as simple truth. But American liberals have defended Jewish "National Front" politics out of the logic of exceptionalism, cold calculation and guilt.

We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
David Ben Gurion

A Jewish state? I'll still take the Rhineland.

A good part of the anger of Arabs now comes not from the fact of Israel or the fact of the expulsion but from the blithe response of westerners to their plight. The selling of Israel as the moral actor in the conflict has added endless insult to injury. Likudniks are honest with themselves if not with others, but liberals have been unwilling to admit what it is they've defended. Why should I offer support to any movement that puts race before representation? And we're supposed to see J Street as representing something like ourselves? In our multi-ethnic democracy? That's like seeing the lobby for a moderate version of Saudi bigotry as somehow a standard bearer for civil society.

Palestinians have been either reviled or pitied, but not treated with respect. This failure, of liberals more than the right -who've never cared at all- has given Israel as false sense of confidence in its own morality and modernity. The defensiveness hasn't faded over time as it should have been allowed to do, it's gotten stronger The Israeli radicals have grown stronger.
The hypocrisy of liberal Zionists is responsible for the present situation, more than the settlers and the Israeli right.

SUHAILI

12:18 PM ET

January 28, 2009

that's the truth that is best left unsaid

you know one thing i could not get over is how m/w call the lobby's activities as american as apple pie. i don't think (clark) letting a foreign leader (weizmann) sneak into white house to strong-arm a us prez very american AT ALL.

mearsheimer and walt should not however be accused of liberal tendency. the issue is not an academic one, and i believe they were not writing as academics for this paper. they wrote it for us americans, ordinary folks who have been hearing too much good about israel and the jewish suffering. realistically, there ARE out out racists out there, and in today's politicized world one accommodates a garbled discourse.

i'd let it go, because ultimate justice isn't the bottom line here (american security is). reality on the ground is all that israel have been doing and they succeeded thus far. from here we have to go foreward. that is why it IS important to talk about respect to the palestinians, even if we ignore the injustice inflicted on them.

just went to check on initial reaction to Obama's mild and soothing-in-tone arab tv interview. already panic is broken among the psychologically vulnerable. paste one here to show why we could not go back to the ill begotten beginning. after the dash--don't want it to be too close to my own. (matter of fact, could not stand the typical tunnel vision that sees homemade rockets but not laser guided hightech killing machines.)
---------------

44 -
God help us
Proud Israeli Jew [ Tuesday, January 27, 2009 ]

Too bad Americans have NEVER lived in horror, otherwise you would realize the impact of Obama's so called call to good will. You think 9/11 was terror? No, the only people affected where those who lost their family, the remainder of the country, less the republicans, live in a world where bulldozers and construction workers solve their problems by moving the evidence of 9/11 to a landfill in Staten Island and return things as business as usual. Try living in a world where rockets land in your town on a DAILY basis for the last 8 years and constantly wonder which day will be your families home. America has become weak and now threatens all of Israel by it's foolish acts of giving in to TERRORISTS that most of the first world cannot not even fathom in their minds. Obama has opened the floodgates for an elimination of Israel and is a fool. The rest of you ... sheep to the wolf. George Bush kept Israel safe, now it's only up to god. Obama DOES NOT speak on behalf of Israel and has NO RIGHT TO DO SO.

GRAND SEN-OR

6:49 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Obama has opened the

Obama has opened the floodgates for an elimination of Israel and is a fool. The rest of you ... sheep to the wolf. George Bush kept Israel safe, now it's only up to god. Obama DOES NOT speak on behalf of Israel and has NO RIGHT TO DO SO.

On the other hand Americans may counter argue and evenas Walt and his friend would do, demonstrate according to the SATFP that "OBAMA DOES speak on behalf of the USA Interests and has ALL THE RIGHT TO DO SO - he is the PRESIDENT of the USA."

As I had advised you now and again during last 20 odd years: You guys spend your energy making films and developing WMD with the hope that they would help (what you in politics while ignoring altogether to invest into the political concepts, what a waste. Now, you've been left in the Blue side of the US. Who do you think will extend hands to you now?
I still do - read all my messages posted on this Blog.
There is a way out of this mess you have created. A way out for all - if you _will_. Remembering that "the God doesn't help people who don't help themselves!"

the evidence of 9/11 to a landfill in Staten Island and return things as business as usual.

What is wrong with that?
It was the US interests according to the SATFP to do that. If you ask me they should cover up the whole thing as an accident, but other Interests of the US required the Administration to behave as they did.
Inother words everything is according to the Book (the SATFP), You Bloggers should stick it on your screens before you enter this Blog. That's what I do. And to keep reminding it to you I repeat it every other occassion with an update. I was expecting the Blog owns it and takes care of it like their baby, and maintain it like they would do to their babies by changing her nappies when it needed;->
But never mind, I am prepared to do the the dirtiest job while you guys roll the camera in Lobbywood;->.
Bye, have a nice day.

Grand Sen~or

GRAND SEN-OR

5:29 PM ET

January 28, 2009

Americans who care about

Americans who care about Israel should be free to criticize it when its government takes actions that they believe are not in Israel’s interest" (p. 195).

Meybe you should rather compose this semtence like this:

"Americans (let's say Israel Lobby) who care about Israel should be free to support it when its government takes actions that they believe are in reality in Israel’s interest (regardless of Americans' Interest?!) while other Americans (Walt and his friends) who care about Israel critisize it (again regardless of Americans' Interet?!) believing those actions are in reality not in Israel's Interest".

So in that way Americans like S.M.Walt and his friends criticize Israel while Israel Lobby (some other Americans) support Israel. That would be ideal, wouldn't it? In the end whatever is the outcome of the actions of Israel some Americans win some lose but the money stay within the family of Americans;->>
I can't imagine any realist Jew (American or Israeli) would oppose to such a deal;->>

My question is which Americans know better if it is Israel's Interest when Israel takes an action?

Americans like Walt and his friends or Americans like Israel Lobby members?

Stephen! bring your theory and show us that your valuation of Israel's action is better than Israel Lobby's.

(Please don't tell us "Don't you see, it is obvious, it is common-sense that I am right!" like some Bloggers would say;->>
Suppose we are dumb (or illegal alien), unless you show according to your theory how you reached to your evaluation we will never, ever understand you and you will remain broken hearted for ever;-))).

The same way Israel Lobby guys/dolls have to bring their theory to prove their case;->>

(we won't buy "By G-d! We are Jews by birth and know what is good for Israel by heart!" for an answer. We are not heart doctors here, we are sort of FP Bloggers;->>)

What I am trying to say is; "believing an Israel action is Israel's Interest" means nothing by itself, you guys have to show us according to what theory you evaluated this action and reached to the conclusion that it is Israel's Interest or not!

If you guys fail to do that, next time when Israel acts gaze at the stars to find out if it is, it was Israel's Interest or not;->Stars never lie;->>

Grand Sen~or

I know I am trying my luck hard;->
One of these days I am going to be kicked out of this Blog;->>

RICHARD WITTYQ

10:29 AM ET

January 28, 2009

Dr. Walt, I like a great deal

Dr. Walt,
I like a great deal of your clarified commitments, and do think that the reaction to your actual positions are often extreme and mis-representative.

I did NOT like the LRB article.

I personally found what I considered hypocrisy in your (you and Dr Mearsheimer's) defenses of the article, stating similarly that you acknowledged in the article that the lobby mostly undertakes legal and rational actions as a lobby but still "warning" of its potentially harmful influence on US policy and culture.

You noted that the Israel Lobby was not monolithic in the variety of opinions expressed by different proponents, and yet also stated that the lobby was impossible to oppose (a definition of monolith).

You also minimized the reality that the combination of factors that you described, resemble in really only slight exageration, a sequence of malicious lies and prejudices about Jews, lies that were directly sited by nazi and fascist sympathizers to regard Jews and their "actions" as foreign, a problem prospectively to be purged.

Specifically, you spoke (I'm admittedly caricaturing your words) to the degree that "sympathizers with Israel exert excessive control over the media", "sympathizers with Israel exert excessive control over the flow of finance capital", "sympathizers with Israel attempt to nefariously influence leadership in their role as intimate consultancy", "sympathizers with Israel that have official positions in administrations demonstrate a dual loyalty, a fundamental dis-loyalty to the US".

In reading your subsequent comments, I know that these are exagerations, to the extent of being mis-representations of your effort and thesis.

Yet, at the same time, you stated similar theses forcefully, and in a manner that do fuel those that do not clarify that they meant something different than was perceived.

In reading the LRB article, my personal reaction was that the article contained polemic, interpretation stated definitively as fact (contributing to the appearance that the historical context for your institutional analysis was insufficiently researched and vetted), and did suggest that the Israel Lobby was monolithic in the prospectively fascist sense.

I thank you for considering your critics' points, to incorporate revisions and elaborations into the book.

The article was made the splash though. Some of your critics suspected that your book was edified only reluctantly. And, certainly, many of your critics did not read the book at all (or maybe only a couple chapters), and many more did not read the thesis coolly.

Most significantly, the book came out during a period in which Israel was at war in Lebanon, a war that different well-meaning people with integrity interpreted 180 degrees apart.

I took great pains to note what actually occurred during the war itself, statements from varying domestic and international official and dissenting press, statements from UN officials. The events that Dr. Mearsheimer in particular sited in published (you-tube) lecture and Q & A, did not resemble my understanding of the events in Lebanon, and appeared to have adopted a biased and polemic interpretation, that resembled the politically correct which I considered as incomplete to the point of mis-representation.

My criticism extended beyond just the fact that the subject of the article and book was necessarily contreversial. I know that you did not control much of how the article rolled out to the public, how people would use your presentation, and how people would react to the article itself and what they feared it implied. I assume that you did have full editorial control of the content, and that you and Dr. Mearsheimer certainly had full control of statements that you made at public lectures and presentations.

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:41 AM ET

January 28, 2009

US support for Israeli actions worlds greatest terror-incentive

Every now and again the colony in Arabia with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland, embarasses America, because it still has the right to decide its own affairs, without being reigned in by America.

America must get its act together and put a screw on the worlds last colony. If the colony's only ally on the face of the earth cannot do this, then who are supposed to do it?

As the professors Mearsheimer and Walt have pointed out, Israels brutal treatment of the palestinians and US concent of Israels construction of settlements in the occupied territories, is one of the worlds greatest terror-incentives. It motivates some people to attack The United States. It serves as a formidable recruitment tool for terrorist-organisations. And lastly, it generates a lot of sympathy for terrorist activities among a large number of people in the Arab world.

..........Area..........Population
Israel: 20,770 km²......7,282,000
Negev*: ~ 13,000 km².......554,000
Israel
minus
Negev: ~7,770 km².......6,728,000

Delaware: 6,446 km²
Cecil County, Maryland: 1,083 km²

GRAND SEN-OR

7:07 PM ET

January 28, 2009

US support for Israeli actions worlds greatest terror-incentive

US support for Israeli actions worlds greatest terror-incentive

Guys! excuse my _Pigin English_ but you have screwed up with this concept "terrorism" - completely, like the Jews screwed up with their concept of "holocaust", They have no political value anymore, now thank you all they are Holywood/Bolywood jargon, so be imaginative and invent new concepts to do politics. I have already introduced a few of those here, if you are creative and wise enough to use intellect rather than waiting foryour Mollas' or Rabbis' or Dons' advice you would jump on them and buy some shares before their price reach to heavens;->>

I really _love_ this blog;->>
Every morning I tell myself "I won't post anything today!" but when I see such provocative messages I can't help myself - really;->>Olivier is right in a sense, I am posting too many of them, but if you guys didn't post such messages believe me I wouldn't post what I do;->I am still quite picky you know, otherwise I would spend all my life posting messages, thanks to you;->>

Grand Sen~or

DAVID DOPPLER

11:43 PM ET

January 28, 2009

I'd like to see more

I'd like to see more attention paid to what would improve the situation in Israel and Palestine, and less name-calling, mis-citation, and correction of mis-citation, and responding to name-calling. This string of comments is like a long "who struck John," account that gets us nowhere. My personal view is that there is every imaginable position held by various Israelis and Palestinians, and their American other friends and enablers, a much smaller set of those views are within the bounds of reason and based upon respect for universal rights, and I would sorely like to see this smaller set clearly articulated, and then see passionately reasoned argument back and forth to clarify options. I personally try to ignore every post or comment that includes personal smears. Let's just identify every name-calling, personal-attack-based post as out of bounds. If we allow ourselves to be distracted by those who don't want there to be free and open debate, we let them score points, and continue to prolong the process.