The two terms of 'anti-Semitism' and 'fundamentalism' may not carry opposite meaning to each other in the linguistic sense, but their usage indicates that they are in opposite motion.
The latter is constantly being used to malign one community (Muslim) whilst the former is used to protect (Jewish) another community from any criticism. Why is it that the West feels at liberty to routinely label the most passive Muslim for merely adhering to the personal rituals of his/her faith as a 'militant' or as a 'fundamentalist'?
Such terms are clearly used with scorn and vilification. These terms are selectively applied to sustain the ongoing intellectual terrorism along with the real physical terror that is being dispensed by efficient and lethal war machines against the defenseless Islamic world.
In sharp contrast, the West has difficulty even uttering the word 'Jew' for fear of the stick of anti-Semitism, let alone voice any form of criticism. The swift condemnation of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's recent comment about the Jews having disproportionate power with respect to their numbers, is an example of this phenomenon.
As expected, Western intelligentsia became hysterical with accusations of 'anti-Semitism', whilst remaining oblivious to Israel as it conducted its raid in Gaza, killing many innocent civilians. It is strange how words can move nations into action, but yet they remain oblivious to the shedding of blood.
Mahathir's statement was nothing more then an observation of the reality. At worst, one can say his interpretation of reality was inaccurate, but certainly there were no deliberate scorning of the Jewish people. If anything, the comments should have been taken as a form of compliment, since the statement acknowledges the achievement of the Jews in gaining power and influence in society, despite their persecution and relatively small numbers.
Similar frenzied responses emanated when the British MP Tam Dalyell made a remark suggesting that a 'Jewish cabal', was having undue influence upon Tony Blair's regime. The very same argument(s) can also be attributed to the US regime, where the role of the shady neo-conservatives, along with organisation such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, wield such enormous power and influence that is has even rattled the ordinary conservative Christian population of the US!
Many of them view that US military forces are being used as a vehicle to promote the interests of Israel and the large corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. They chose to remain silent out of the fear of being branded and scorned as anti-Semitic and unpatriotic.
The use of the term 'anti-Semitism' is also perplexing at times. For example, many of the Arabs are more Semitic in race then many Jews of Eastern Europe. Yet, they are often categorised as 'anti-Semitic' for expressing their anger about Israel's continuous Judaisation of the remainder of Palestine.
Similarly, it is equally perplexing to see the Europe's desire to extinguish the guilt that it has accumulated due to centuries of anti-Jewish pogroms in European cities, which culminated with the Nazi Holocaust ( Shoah ) have sought to remove the burden of their crime by handing over land belonging to other people.
On the contrary, history has proven the hospitality and the magnanimity of the Muslim and Arab people towards minorities including the Jews. Instead of pogroms, ethnic cleansing and holocausts, the Jews experienced the golden age in Andalusia (Spain) under Muslim rule, an era unparalleled in their 5000+ years of history.
Even the noted Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis, whose writings are not known to be complimentary towards Muslims and Islam, noted in many of his books and articles that Jews prospered and were safe in Muslim lands, at a time when "Jew-Baiting" was Christian-Europe's favourite past time!
When the unparalleled, genocidal Catholic-Spanish Inquisition took place, Jews found sanctuary in the Islamic cities of Istanbul and Fez. So, for how long must the Palestinians pay for the Jewish Holocaust, which was a Christian-European crime?
For how long will the stick of anti-Semitism be used to silence any criticism of Israel's daily violation of human rights? For how long will the media remain complicit in shielding the Zionist, imperialist, fascist apartheid state known as 'Israel' by the selective use of terminologies, 'reporting' and 'commentaries'?
Consider the sharp contrast between the swift response to defend of the Jewish community, and the recent comments by an obscure US General based in the Pentagon. He is another example of an increasing number of fanatical Christians that are encompassing the US administration.
Lt Gen William Boykin, by referring to Muslims as idol worshipers, had clearly maligned Islam and Muslims. What an irony! Since not a mosque in the world has neither a statue nor icon, in contrast to Christian churches. It is also amusing to note his claim that George Bush was appointed by God, when the world knows Bush won the election fraudulently - or was that also part of the divine scheme of God?
The daily maligning of the Muslims, through terminologies like 'fundamentalism', 'extremism', 'militancy', etc, have become the norm. A small example may help to demonstrate this point. A Oct 20 article in UK's Daily Telegraph , considered a quality national newspaper, described protestors in response to Bush's visit to the UK, as anti-war activists, but which also included 'militant' Muslims!
Having personally attended previous anti-war demonstrations, there were Muslims and non-Muslims of different persuasions. According to the article however, all the Muslims who are likely to participate in the demonstrations are militant, whatever that definition may be.
In maligning Muslims as 'militant' for daring to express themselves, the writer hypocritically undermines the much lectured principals of 'free speech' by choosing not to acknowledge them as law abiding citizens, exercising their legitimate right to protest? This came from a quality newspaper; hence one can let the reader's imagination dwell on the abuse emanating from filthy tabloids.
Now, consider this: if a Christian were to raise his/her voice against the maligning of Jesus by some of the secular fanatics, would they be swiftly labeled as 'militant' Christians? When the Jews raise their voice in defense of Israel, do they promptly get branded as militant Jews? Even their use of lethal military equipment on civilians or the cold blooded massacre by the likes of Baruch Goldstein or the massacres of Sabra-Shatila, Qana, and Jenin, did not qualify them to be labeled as militants.
Therefore, who would ever take exception from their verbal utterance, no matter how offensive it maybe. Take Daniel Pipes for example, a Jew who is known to be a strong sympathiser of Israel, he has been uttering insults that would be deemed by most people as the language of the racist white supremacists.
He has been elevated recently by George Bush, which reflects the current mindset and the actions of the US government. Hence, unless an extreme situation arises these terminologies are applied only selectively and exclusively towards a certain community with a clear underlying political agenda.
Whilst any criticism of Israel is deemed to be anti-Semitic then it logically follows that Israel has been given carte blanche to do what ever it pleases. Even to the detriment of others, as is the case.
