The paper considers is the transformation of the image of the Ottoman Empire in the publicistic texts by Ephraim Deinard, outstand ing Jewish writer and journalist of the turn of the 19th and 20th centu ries. The research was based on two Deinard’s works, “Atidot Israel” (“The Future of Israel”, 1892) and “Tzion be’ad mi?” (“Zion for Whom?”, 1918), which deal with a variety of topics, including Deinard’s opinion on the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the radical change of his position from the statements in “Atidot Israel” to those in “Tzion be’ad mi?” is observed. Deinard discusses the following three aspects, each case being a vivid example of this controversy: 1. The Ottoman government’s attitude towards Jews and the pros pects of the collaboration of the Jewish community with the government; 2. The economic situation in the Ottoman Empire and its foreign policy; 3. The culture and cultural policy in the Ottoman Empire. Deinard’s interest in Turkey was initially caused by his Zionist views, as the Land of Israel was part of the Ottoman Empire. Later, after World War I and especially after the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Zionists placed their expectations on Britain, while Turkey, after losing the war and the territory so important for Jews, could no more be praised by Dei nard. In addition, Deinard had lived in the USA for more than 30 years by 1918, and it is merely logical that his publicistic works were aimed against the USA’s enemy in World War I. This shift looks especially interesting when looked at through the context of the history of the Russian Jewish Enlightenment. A very simi lar process occurred in the ideology of the Russian maskilim in the 19th century. Throughout the 19th century, they believed that the Jews should be integrated in the Russian society and viewed the Russian government as their ally. The Russian authorities, correspondingly, tried to assimilate the Jews and to make them an integral part of the society. However, af ter the pogroms of 1880s, the authorities’ attitude towards Jews changed dramatically, and so did that of the maskilim towards the government. Laws regarding Jews were tightened and became openly anti-Semitic, and the maskilim started to criticize the state instead of hoping for col laboration with it. Deinard’s works used for this research date to a later period. More over, the aforementioned events influenced his positive attitude towards the Ottoman Empire: concerning the status of Jews in the both countries, Deinard opposed Turkey to Russia. Eventually, however, Turkey took the same place for Deinard as Russia did for his predecessors, the maskilim. His hopes for collaboration with the state were just as replaced by disap pointment and criticism. To conclude, the above similarity may suggest that the shift in Dein ard’s views might have correlated with the change in the ideology of the Russian maskilim.
Activities of the Asian Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in coordination of the Russian Balkan policy (first half of the 19th century)
