I mostly agree with this. A Jewish friend of mine(Christine Graham, lives in Oak Ridge, TN. Her grandmother worked on the Bomb) once said, yeeeeears ago in a joking manner that "You don't see a lot of Jewish fundamentalism because we got all our atrocities out of the way early on". I thought that was funny. Still do. I also think it might not be too far from the truth.Not in Judaism, certainly. And not in Islam, either, I think. Fundamentalism in both Judaism and Islam as persisting movements (rather than occasional outbreaks of zealotry) are really responses to the challenges of modernity that have arisen only since the 18th century. For Judaism, which measures time in millennia, this is still a passing fad. For Islam, which measures time in centuries, it's still a fairly short-term phenomenon. Only time will tell if fundamentalist movements actually persist in the long term in those religious communities.
puts on European History HatIt's harder to tell with Christianity, I think. While fundamentalism as a defined philosophy is new (turn of the 20th Century), Christian zealotry is ancient. But it's hard to tell when the aggression and oppression of Christian nations and churches in the past has been the result of institutionalized zealotry as a driving theoloy, or when Christian zealotry has merely been the mask or tool employed to facilitate aggression and oppression for the sake of politics or pursuit of wealth or imperialism and so forth.
I think that a big problem a lot of people have regarding various actions taken during European Christendom's long history is that they view it through the lens of Bismarkian Realpolitik. It'd take me a week to explain all the intricinities of European dynastic politics, their relation to the Church and later Churches, but I think it would be far fairer to say that it was 55/45. That is to say, slightly in favour in simple "This will help me & my demesne" but also an extremely large amount of genuine belief that it was the right thing to do in the eyes of God.