In the nineteenth century, when Orientalist studies reached their peak, the works of Western European countries regarding the Turkish-Islamic geography were both framed within a colonial context and had an ideological identity. Because Orientalists acted according to defined purposes, variations in research by period were not seen as strange but rather as a dynamic process. Therefore, in Orientalist studies, change was not a problem but rather a response to changing needs. It was quite natural for the process to reveal contradictions within its own dynamics.
In the twentieth century, with the emergence of Zionists in Orientalist studies in Western European countries, Zionism also rose to a decisive position as a new colonial ideology. This was a significant development in Orientalist studies compared to the nineteenth century. Edward Said said there was a "language and ideology unity" between Zionism and the West. Said described German, British, and French Orientalists as the "Western ideological parents" of Zionists. Especially, Anglo-Saxons gave more prominence to Zionists in their field studies. After World War II, experts of Jewish origin who did not hesitate to support Zionism to some extent emerged.
After the emergence of Israel, Westerners seeking information and evidence about the Orient turned to Zionists in the second half of the twentieth century, just as they had resorted to Orientalists in the nineteenth century. This will have a lasting impact on East-West relations.
Although the differences between British, French, and German Orientalists or their interactions with each other were important, it has not been easy to evaluate these differences and interactions because the main context was not revealed. However, Orientalism's main context was colonialism, and critical approaches would remain unfounded as long as this aspect was neglected. In this regard, the replacement of French, British, and German researchers by those of Jewish origin in Orientalist studies was not just an ordinary change. For example, finding the answer to how much those included in Orientalist studies from the Turkish-Islamic geography were influenced by such a change is almost impossible without context. The effect of this new situation on relationship networks and dominant mindset could also be seen as a strategic issue.
Revealing the interaction between Zionist ideological blindness and new approaches to the Islamic geography after the 1990s is probably not just a matter of the Islamic geography. This is also an important issue for states funding Orientalist studies. Especially after Israel's genocide against the Palestinians was recognized by international courts, it is useful to evaluate the new situation from different perspectives. Especially after the nineties, the dichotomy between absolute good and absolute evil was much more pronounced in Orientalist studies. It is needless to say that this was the product of an extremely ideological perspective. Unfortunately, this dichotomy was easily embraced in the Western world. It is undeniable that the Western world, led by the Anglo-Saxons and with the eager participation of France, adopted an extremely ideological attitude towards the East-Islamic world. Especially in America, it is known that this ideological perspective is sought to be framed within a religious framework, contrary to the accepted truths. With the adoption of such an ideology by elites in America, the emergence of global results is inevitable.
Desires considered obsolete in countries such as England, France, and Germany have been revived by elites. But this time, Zionism is also considered a colonial ideology. Certainly, Israel should also be seen as a continuation of nineteenth-century colonialism. The support of European countries for Israel should also be evaluated within this framework. It should not be forgotten that Germany allocated resources for the establishment of Israel as early as 1917. In my opinion, colonial desires will determine the rift between them. Because the desires of these countries are so different from each other that they cannot be reconciled.
