AIPAC American foreign policy Americans for Peace Now Barack Obama Israel Israel lobby J Street Palestinians

Glimmers of hope for a sane American Middle East policy

After the carnage of the last few weeks, there are many compelling reasons to give up hope for an enduring peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. But there are shards of hope to be found in the Obama administration. Assuming, as I do, that a fair, evenhanded American approach to both conflict management and more ambitiuous diplomacy is essential, here are at least a few points of light:

!) George Mitchell,

2) George Mitchell.

3) George Mitchell — Check out MJ Rosenberg for some encouraging words about the newly appointed envoy to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

4) J Street, whose PAC raised more money for candidates than any other self-styled pro-Israel PAC in the last election cycle. I believe we ain’t seen nothin’ yet from this group and their allies in the organized American Jewish community, including Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and Ameinu.

5) AIPAC’s inherent limitations— In my forthcoming book (please don’t hesitate to stop reading this and order now), I skewer the myth that the conventional Israel lobby (which includes AIPAC) is an immovable object that no political force can possibly dislodge. It is PERCEIVED to be such an object by elected officials, but much of its clout is based on smoke and mirrors. I hope beyond hope that Obama will take to heart the historical lessons noted in the following excerpt:

“History shows that when presidents are determined to do something in U.S. interests, the lobby folds,” said Samuel Lewis a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who has held several other State Department posts related to the Middle East. “As [George H. W.] Bush demonstrated, the White House can win the fight. Carter had all kinds of problems with the Jewish community, but that didn’t stop him from going forward with our Middle East policy. The lobby didn’t have any substantive impact on Carter. To the extent that he was influenced [in Israel’s favor], it was by the Israelis. . . . Clinton stood up to them, to some extent. Presidents actually have a lot more freedom than they feel like they have. If a president wants to stand up to the lobby, he can.”

6) The “open policy window” — There is also hope to be found in the empirical observations of political scientist John Kingdon, who studied how agendas are set in DC. He wrote of “open policy windows,” i.e., junctures when opportunities exist for decisive political action. That happens, Kingdon observed, when a problem takes center stage, ideas for solving it are readily available, and political winds are blowing in the right direction. They don’t open often, and they don’t stay open long. But one reason they open is a change in presidential administrations, when, as Kingdon put it, “the new administration gives some groups, legislators and agencies their opportunity—an open policy window—to push positions and proposals they did not have the opportunity to push with previous administrations, and it disadvantages other players.”

21 thoughts on “Glimmers of hope for a sane American Middle East policy

  1. I am utterly confident that Obama will NOT adopt the radical approach of exposing Israel to fundamental danger (if he is able).

    Any negotiation that the US, under his administration, will contain the basis of security and decency for all parties that consent to be permanently bound by international agreement.

    So, there is the rub. If Hamas fails to submit to the authority of a unified Palestine, permanently, then there is no possibility of anything but temporary cease-fire. (Island hopping.)

    The organizations and leaders that Dan aluded to at most can shift the attitudes and policies of the US government and Israel, and by extension convey trust to other parties.

    But, it still places Hamas in a position to DECIDE. And, that decision is a one-way heart valve, a question of when it determines to accept Israel’s existence as an open-ended reality, rather than if.

    Many on the left regard Israel as the force that primarily effects the outcome of prospects for peace. I disagree with that. From my perspective, Hamas is the free actor that effects what is possible.

    The one point of the far left that I do agree with is that if Israel continues to incrementally corner both Gaza Palestine and West Bank Palestine (by settlement location primarily), that Palestine will never be viable, and then the two-state proposal will remain “a fleeting illusion, to be conceived, but never attained.”

  2. So the policy window opens “when a problem takes center stage, ideas for solving it are readily available, and political winds are blowing in the right direction?”

    I don’t have any hope of fulfilling the second requirement, the one about ideas being readily available. Are you just pretending that you do, Dan?

    Also, my memory (from grad school, long ago) is that Kingdon’s book was all about domestic policies during the Carter administration. Do political scientists believe the same observations apply to foreign policy-making?

  3. Dan,

    While it is encouraging that a new administration has seen fit to appoint a new Middle East negotiator who is not Jewish, unlike Clinton who appointed the “five rabbis,” and George Mitchell demonstrated an almost super-human ability to listen to long-winded speechs in Belfast, the structural dynamics are not presently favorable for Middle East peace. Peace occurred in Northern Ireland because the Republican (Sinn Fein/IRA) leadership was ready for peace, the population of both communities was tired of war, and the two governments created a structure that was conducive to shepherding the parties to peace. And yet it took nearly 13 years to negotiate a stable peace arrangement after the first ceasefire was in place! The rejectionist republicans in NI on the nationalist side had only about 1-2% support.

    In Palestine the Palestinians are divided geographically and ideologically into two very antagonistic groups. President Abbas’s term has expired, at least in the thinking of Hamas, and it is reported that the war discredited him with Fatah militants/terrorists–those that staffed the Al-Aksa Brigades, Tanzim, etc. and that he is probably finished as a leader. Hamas has emerged from the war militarily weaker but probably politically as strong as ever. In Palestine the rejectionists are, if not an outright majority, then a strong plurality in terms of support.

    We will know in about two weeks time how the war has affected Israeli politics. It should be clear whether the peace camp has continued to lose strength or merely maintained its present weakened state. If Likud wins the election and forms a coalition it will possibly be a good thing as a failure by the right might in the long run help to rehabilitate the center-left. But the memoirs of all Middle East officials in the Clinton administration demonstrate in what contempt Benyamin Netanyahu was held by the administration. Netanyahu taking power may only postpone our disillusionment with Tzipi Livni as the next “great Jewish hope” who fails to deliver.

  4. Dan, I noticed the odd title of your piece. Granted that you disagree with current US policy, do you really think that it is not sane?

    I am not even sure that Hamas’s policies are insane. Violent and jihadist for sure, but not necessarily insane.

    Wanting to either destroy or protect the existence of Israel may be wise or unwise, moral or immoral, but neither is insane.

    So how could current US policy be not sane? Don’t you think you’re title is a little over the top? It is rather like that storeowner on TV who used to rant about how he was completely insane because his prices were so low.

    “Sane” doesn’t mean wise, it means consistent with normal thought processes. What constitutes sanity can vary from society to society. Nazi beliefs in our society are insane. In Germany seventy years ago Nazism was normal, and Nazis were not insane.

    Do you really think that our current US policy is not sane? Does that mean that Condi Rice is insane? And the DoD Secretary Gates, who is remaining in office. Is he insane also?

  5. Jonathan, I think I just realized what’s the problem with you. You always waste so much breath on inconsequential, tautological stuff (such as the above discussion of sane/insane policies) which leaves everybody who has the bad luck of engaging in a dialog with you frustrated and unenlightened.
    But seeing you’re are a Perl man, I am willing to entertain the idea of you not being malicious on purpose, but rather treating human communication and discussions as a computer program with all the objects having precise definitions. You’re like a compiler that is unable to cast one object into another and shouts “Foul!” Maybe you should just switch the mode of your thinking: see the essence, not the unimportant stuff.
    And, by the way, what’s with the links to Debka?

  6. “””But seeing you’re are a Perl man”””

    Wow! It sounds like you visited my website. Thanks.

    I only use Perl for certain specific tasks. I like the ability to use backticks, read the output into a variable, and then run a regex on it. But usually I use Python.

    “””You’re like a compiler that is unable to cast one object into another and shouts “Foul!” Maybe you should just switch the mode of your thinking”””

    To a compiler designer, a prohibition against casting one object into another can be very important. It can prevent run-time errors or possibly worse, a program which has malfunctioned without warning and is generating incorrect results.

    There are those nowadays who cast Palestinians into World War II era Jews, Israel into apartheid South Africa, or alternately, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah into Nazis.

    Based upon their casts, these people will then argue, therefore we should boycott Israel just like we did South Africa, or therefore we should go to war against Iran just like we went to war against Hitler.

    Casting blindly can be very dangerous.

    “””see the essence, not the unimportant stuff.”””

    But what’s important? To some, whether Hamas shot rockets at Israel after the formal end of the ceasefire was unimportant. For others, the Hamas rockets were both an act of war and a war crime.

    Ali Abumineh at ElectronicIntifada argues that the Hamas rockets were no more real than Saddam’s post 1991 nuclear program. Indeed, the letter which Dan signed makes no explicit mention of the rockets, a serious omission in my mind.

    But others wouldn’t dream of discussing the Gaza War without mentioning Hamas’s rockets prominently. Hamas fired 300 rockets in six days. Quite a heavy load.

    To me, Hamas wanted Israel to invade Gaza. Otherwise why fire so many rockets?

    “””And, by the way, what’s with the links to Debka?”””

    It was a mistake due to my browser caching an old value. I meant to link to BuberZionist.com. Thanks for asking.

  7. I also think that Hamas wanted Israel to invade, at least Hamas that linked Damascus with the military wing.

    I doubt that the social services wing wanted a war.

    War is NOT an on/off switch. There are levels of engagement, and rules of engagement during the conflict. Israel did adopt a punitive approach, in which too many targets were justified on very INDIRECT rationale.

    And, more importantly, during war, to cut off communications to the point that commitment alone (and not also open ears) governs conduct, is strategically idiotic.

    Israel was lucky in this one, that Hamas did not exact 100’s or thousands of ground casualties.

    There was an article in Haaretz today of surprise at Hamas’ comparative military impotence (compared to Hezbollah).

    The message, as Torah scholars pronounce clearly:

    Anger is not a particularly effective basis of decision or action.

  8. “””So isn’t it foolish of Israel to play to Hamas’ game plan?”””

    Not necessarily. Israel had information about its own capabilities and strategies that Hamas did not have. War might have seemed to both parties to be in their own interests, due to their differential access to information.

    Anthony Cordesman, who I took a class with and is generally sympathetic to Israel, suggests that Israel may have traded a tactical gain for a long-term loss. In the short term the war did halt Hamas rocketeering under terms that indirect negotiations with Hamas would not have producted.

    So the two sides may each have assessed their own interests under different time frames.

  9. Jonathan,

    I think Israel suffered in both the short and long terms, but may have gained in the medium term. Israel’s image suffered in the short term–this is probably reversable in the U.S. if not in Europe or the Third World.

    In the long term it may have strengthened Hamas’s hold both in Gaza and on the West Bank. Abu Mazen’s impotence in the face of Israeli attacks may have dealt him a death blow in Palestinian politics. He was in a weak fragile position as it was without much of his own political support but support only derived from his office and from his position as Arafat’s successor. Israel will soon find itself faced with a choice between Barghouti and Hamas.

    It might be useful at some point for Israel to release Barghouti from prison, but all Israeli governments would appear too weak to do so for some time. To do so in exchange merely for the release of Shalit or some other handful of Israeli prisoners in a lopsided exchange of Palestinian prisoners would make Israel look weak and would be harmful to Israel’s security.

  10. Polls do not bear out the claim that Israel’s image suffered:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2oCpwqqFTpw&refer=home

    “””Sixty percent of Americans in the nationwide survey said they were sympathetic toward the Israelis, compared with 17 percent who supported the Palestinians, CNN reported today on its Web site. A recent European poll showed that 23 percent of French people said the Palestinian Hamas group was primarily responsible for the war while 18 percent mainly blamed Israel.

    The results indicate Israel successfully communicated in the U.S. its view that it had to defend itself against rocket attacks from the militant Hamas organization that controls Gaza and is considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and European Union. More than 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the 22-day war.

    The CNN poll showed that 63 percent of Americans felt Israel was justified in taking military action, compared with 30 percent who disagreed. “””

    A recent poll in Denmark (!) showed similar results to those in France.

    “””Israel will soon find itself faced with a choice between Barghouti and Hamas.

    It might be useful at some point for Israel to release Barghouti from prison, but all Israeli governments would appear too weak to do so for some time. To do so in exchange merely for the release of Shalit or some other handful of Israeli prisoners in a lopsided exchange of Palestinian prisoners would make Israel look weak and would be harmful to Israel’s security.”””

    Even though Barghouti organized drive-by shootings of cars with Israeli plates, and murdered a Greek Orthodox priest, he is comparatively tame compared to Hamas. I don’t forgive him, but I am aware of his not-so-bad points as well as his evil ones.

    Barghouti is Fatah, not Hamas. The latter has no interest in Barghouti’s release. He would compete with them for rule of Palestine.

    Israel would exchange Barghouti for Shalit in a moment, but it won’t happen.

  11. The Buber Zionist wrote:

    “The results indicate Israel successfully communicated in the U.S.” that is got away with a lot of lies (see Henry Siegman’s article “Israel’s Lies” in the London Review of Books).

    Soon we will see more of that on blogs:

    From Haaretz 1/19/09

    “Israel recruits ‘army of bloggers’ to combat anti-Zionist Web sites

    By Cnaan Liphshiz

    The Immigrant Absorption Ministry announced on Sunday it was setting up an “army of bloggers,” to be made up of Israelis who speak a second language, to represent Israel in “anti-Zionist blogs” in English, French, Spanish and German.

    The program’s first volunteer was Sandrine Pitousi, 31, from Kfar Maimon, situated five kilometers from Gaza. “I heard about the project over the radio and decided to join because I’m living in the middle of the conflict,” she said.

    Before hanging up the phone prematurely following a Color Red rocket alert, Pitousi, who immigrated to Israel from France in 1993, said she had some experience with public relations from managing a production company.

    “During the war, we looked for a way to contribute to the effort,” the ministry’s director general, Erez Halfon, told Haaretz. “We turned to this enormous reservoir of more than a million people with a second mother tongue.” Other languages in which bloggers are sought include Russian and Portuguese.

    Halfon said volunteers who send the Absorption Ministry their contact details by e-mail, at media@moia.gov.il, will be registered according to language, and then passed on to the Foreign Ministry’s media department, whose personnel will direct the volunteers to Web sites deemed “problematic.”

    Within 30 minutes of announcing the program, which was approved by the Foreign Ministry on Sunday, five volunteers were already in touch, Halfon said. ”

  12. The Buber Zionist apparently had his poll figures from the Jerusalem Post. Here are what seem to me somewhat more realistic figures provided by the Rasmussen Reports (these poll figuresw date from around 31st December – I imagine that now the extent of the carnage is known they will be worse for Israel):

    Recent Polls

    Americans Closely Divided Over Israel’s Gaza Attacks

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement

    Americans, while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip.

    Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

    Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.

    Men are far more sympathetic to the Israelis than women. Fifty-six percent (56%) of men support Israel’s military action, compared to 34% of women. Whites narrowly give the edge to military action, but African-Americans by three-to-one say diplomacy was the better way to go.

    Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those who say they are following news out of Gaza Very Closely support Israel’s military action, while 30% favor diplomacy.

    While the Bush administration is viewed as a solid ally of Israel, the new findings signal a possible shift in Washington’s support for Tel Aviv under President Obama.

    Just after the election, 47% of voters said Obama will do a good or excellent job handling national security issues. Thirty-four percent (34%) expected him to handle those issues poorly.

    Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

    While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.”

  13. And BuberZionist the situation in Europe might be somewhat different from that suggested by the figures you quote. JewishIndy wrote:

    “Many European newspaper commentators are saying that concerns about anti-Semitism in Europe are overblown. They argue that the Jew haters are a tiny minority on the extreme political right who are given far more attention than they deserve. They also say that those concerned about the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe are confusing legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.

    But myriad polling data show that all across Europe, the fine line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism has been dangerously blurred. An [16] opinion poll in Germany, for example, shows that more than 50 percent of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Sixty-eight percent of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, [17] another poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.”

    Of course JewishIndy calls this all irrational and anti-semitic but that could be expected.

  14. The blurring of the line between criticism of policies and anti-semitism in its various forms, is substantive and important.

    It in no way limits the ability of dissenters to criticize Israeli policies. It definitely raises the bar as to how dissent is communicated, and the self-reflection of dissenters to actually discern if they bear anti-semitic assumptions.

  15. “””The Buber Zionist apparently had his poll figures from the Jerusalem Post.”””

    Look, I provided the link to the Bloomberg article I quoted, and the Bloomberg article says that CNN conducted the poll. All you had to do was read the quote that I posted in order to know where the poll came from.

    “””Here are what seem to me somewhat more realistic figures provided by the Rasmussen Reports”””

    Rasmussen is a polling firm. Its results, which you quote below, are consistent with CNNs poll, but ask a different question.

    “””Americans, while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians,”””

    Agreed. In fact, that has been the case for many decades if not forever. Thank God for that.

    “””Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.”””

    The CNN poll asked a different question, namely, “63 percent of Americans felt Israel was justified in taking military action.” One could think that Israel was justified in taking action, but thought that it was not in Israel’s interest to do so.

    In fact, Anthony Cordesman wrote an article arguing just that. PERHAPS (one would need to interview the respondents) 19 percent of Americans think that Israel was justified in going to war, but believe that it was not in Israel or America’s interest to go to war when it did.

    “””Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.”””

    The Rasmussen poll you quote is the same on this point as CNN. A 55 to 13 margin in favor of Israel is pretty good.

    “””Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those who say they are following news out of Gaza Very Closely support Israel’s military action, while 30% favor diplomacy.”””

    Still more pro-Israel sentiment that Rasmussen measured.

    “””While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.””””

    Is Israel an ally of America? 75% to 21% to 1% of Republicans say yes, and 55% to 28% to 7% of Democrats agree.

    These are good numbers.

  16. Here are the poll numbers for Germany, based on a Forsa Institute opinion poll commissioned by the German magazine Der Stern:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950868144&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    “””Regarding the IDF operation in Gaza, 30% of those surveyed said Hamas was responsible for the outbreak of violence, while 13% called Israel the guilty party. Hamas and Israel were viewed as being equally responsible by 35% of those polled.”””

    30 to 13 is a good number also. In Germany and Denmark a plurality support Israel in its war with Hamas, and in the US it is a majority, according to poll data.

  17. Hi Dan, did you see George Mitchell is skipping Gaza on his important first mission to the Middle East?

    Would you call that a sign of change we can believe in?

  18. Buber Zionist, you referred to the “Jerusalem Post” account of the “Stern” poll and quoted moreover, seeing that the general question was whether and how the image of Israel is changing, very selectively from it. That 30 % of those questioned still believe that Hamas was mainly responsible for the recent Israeli onslaught on Gaza shows that the near-consensus among the well informed that Israel broke the truce first has not yet reached the less well informed. I wouldn’t take any comfort from this and other figures though. I have translated the original “Stern” article (you can find a copy of the original below).

    “The Germans have developed an ambiguous relation towards Israel

    That is shown by the Forsa poll commissioned by “Stern”. The majority characterises the Israeli policy as ruthless and denies any special German responsibility for this country, according to the poll. Especially the adherents of leftist parties are judging critically.

    Over the decades the Germans have had, after the Nazi-dictatorship and holocaust, a special relation to Israel – that is however apparently changing. The polling institute Forsa questioned people on behalf of “Stern” among other things about the present war in Gaza – and got surprising answers. About half of those questioned (49%) said that Israel is an aggressive country. 59 % stated that it pursues its interests without any regard for other countries. And only 30 % of the citizens are convinced that Israel takes human rights into account. However, 45 % characterise Israel as a sympathetic country. But 13 % question Israel’s right to exist and among the adherents of the left wing parties that is even 28 % – more than each fourth person.

    Germans do not agree on the question who is mainly guilty for the recent conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. In this “Stern” poll 30 % said Hamas. Especially the elderly and the adherents of the (Christian Democratic) Union see it that way. 13 % call Israel guilty – here again disproportionally the young and the leftist voters. 35 % said that both parties were equally responsible.

    Stern adds the results of another poll:

    … the question whether Germany, more than sixty years after the Nazi-dictatorship, still has a special responsibility towards Israel was answered positively by about one third (35 %) of those questioned. However the great majority (60 %) sees no longer any specific obligations. This view is especially found among the young (70%), East Germans (68%) and adherents of the leftwing partiers (72%). The Forsa-chief, Manfred Guellner, called this in an interview with “Stern” a dangerous development, when among the young again the feeling predominates that there should be a final stripe among all this and when they are no longer preoccupied with what happened in the Nazi-era.

    (Die Deutschen haben ein zwiespältiges Verhältnis zu Israel entwickelt.

    Das zeigt die Forsa-Umfrage im Auftrag des Stern. Demnach bezeichnet die Mehrheit die israelische Politik als rücksichtslos und verneint eine besondere deutsche Verantwortung für das Land. Vor allem Anhänger der Linkspartei urteilen kritisch.

    Die Deutschen haben nach NS-Diktatur und Holocaust über Jahrzehnte hinweg ein besonderes Verhältnis zu Israel gehabt – das sich aber offenbar zu wandeln beginnt. Das Meinungsforschungsinstitut Forsa befragte die Bürger im Auftrag des stern unter anderem über den aktuellen Krieg im Gaza-Streifen – und erhielt überraschende Antworten. Knapp die Hälfte der Befragten (49 Prozent) sagte, Israel sei ein aggressives Land. 59 Prozent erklärten, es verfolge seine Interessen ohne Rücksicht auf andere Länder. Und nur 30 Prozent der Bürger sind überzeugt, dass die israelische Regierung die Menschenrechte achtet. Andererseits bezeichnen 45 Prozent Israel als ein sympathisches Land. 13 Prozent stellen dagegen das Existenzrecht Israels infrage. Bei den Anhängern der Linkspartei tun dies sogar 28 Prozent – mehr als jeder Vierte.

    Uneins sind die Deutschen in der Frage, wer an dem jüngsten Konflikt zwischen Israel und der radikalislamischen Hamas im Gaza-Streifen die Hauptschuld trägt. 30 Prozent nannten in der stern-Umfrage die Hamas. Besonders die Älteren und die Anhänger der Union sehen das so. 13 Prozent geben Israel die Schuld – hier auch wieder überdurchschnittlich oft Jüngere und Anhänger der Linkspartei. Dass beide Seiten gleichermaßen verantwortlich sind, sagen 35 Prozent.

    … ob die Deutschen mehr als 60 Jahre nach dem Ende der Nazi-Diktatur noch eine besondere Verpflichtung gegenüber Israel haben, bejaht rund ein Drittel der Bürger (35 Prozent). Die große Mehrheit aber (60 Prozent) sieht keine außergewöhnliche Verpflichtung mehr. Besonders ausgeprägt ist diese Sichtweise bei Jüngeren (70 Prozent), Ostdeutschen (68 Prozent) und Anhängern der Linkspartei (72 Prozent). Im Gespräch mit stern.de nannte Forsa-Chef Manfred Güllner es eine “gefährliche Entwicklung”, wenn unter den Jüngeren wieder das Gefühl vorherrsche, sie müssten einen Schlussstrich ziehen und sich nicht mehr mit dem beschäftigten, was in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus passiert sei.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.