Calling someone Amalek - is not a code word for genocide!

Update 7 21 2013: Rav Ovadia Yosef says only politicians were meant 
There have been a lot of hystical comments (click link) regarding Rav Shalom Cohen applying the word "Amalek"   to those who wear a knitted kipa. The common thread is that it was claimed that he was  calling for genocide against the Modern Orthodox - chas v'shalom! These comments reflect a gross misunderstanding [perhaps a deliberate one] of how the term Amalek is used in Orthodox verbal warfare and a very short term memory. [update: RCA and OU condemn Rav Cohen's use of term Amalek as escalation of rhetoric - not as call for genocide]

Everybody agrees with the gemora (Berachos 28a) that there are no specific people who can be identified as Amalek for the mitzva of destroying Amalek. Once you get past that obvious and well known fact, you can understand that the term "Amalek" is used to described attitude or views that certain people have that is viewed as destructive to the Jewish people. It is the attitude or views which are being criticized - NO ONE IS CALLING FOR THE MURDER OR GENOCIDE OF THOSE LABELED AS "AMALEK". Below I cite a number of articles - including those from anti-Semitic publications which insist that use of the term "Amalek" is a code word for genocide - much as those who claim that Rav Cohen's use of the term means genocide. However it is clear that the use not only by Chareidim but by the Modern Orthodox (kipa seruga) and secular Israeli's have the same connotation of referring to ideas or attitudes - not genocide of a particular people!

2006 Rabbi Jack Riemer (Clinton's rabbi)   calls Islam Extremists - but not ordinary Muslims - Amalek. This ignited a storm whether he in fact meant that there should be genocide against all Muslims.

2006 Rav Mordechai Eliyahu calls Palestinian's Amalek

2008 http://www.meforum.org/2564/amalek - After the Mercaz HaRav massacre of 8 student's -  The killer - and by extension the Palestinians - were referred to as Amalek by Rav Shapiro. This was described by the commentator as a dangerous escalation in vocabulary.

2009 Israeli government in reference to Iran. See New York Times and responses - Bibi's advisor explained the Israeli attitude to Iran by saying "Think Amalek" - this ignited a storm as to whether Bibi was calling for genocide against the Iranians. In fact it was clear that Israeli had no such intention and that "Think Amalek" was not meant to convey that understanding. 

2011 Anti-Semitic site claims that refering to Palestinians as Amalek is a call by Orthodox Jews for genocide and concentration camps

============================================

The correct understanding of describing someone as Amalek is that it is referring to traits or attitudes that the person or group has that are destructive to the Jewish peole and thus must be changed - it is not referring to genocide.

Chabad article about killing Amalek - Wiping Out Amalek Today

Rav Moshe Feinstein said in Darash Moshe Remember what Amalek did to you (25:17).

    We must understand why there is still a mitzvah of remembering the act of Amalek today, even though in our present exile we would be forbidden to perform the mitzvah of eradicating him even if we knew for certain which peoples belong to Amalek.

    In my humble opinion, the point of this mitzvah is to remind us now that it is possible for any creature of flesh and blood to become as wicked as Amalek, and like him to deny Hashem's role in the world even though he sees irrefutable evidence of it, as Amalek saw at the Splitting of the Sea and in the other miracles Hashem did for us in the Wilderness. The Sages (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Seitzei 9) compared Amalek to someone who, seeing a bath of boiling water which all others were afraid to touch, nonetheless leaped into it. Despite the fact that he himself was badly scalded, he cooled the bath water to a degree where others could then also take the plunge of bathing in it. Similarly, all the miracles Hashem had done for the Jews did not deter Amalek from attacking them and making it possible for others also to want to wage war against them.

     The lesson we learn is that each of us, however great his spiritual accomplishments, must worry that he himself might be tricked into committing the most serious sins, even those that everyone considers to be most despicable. Just as Amalek fell so low, we must also be afraid that any of us can fall equally low. Not only must each of us distrust his ability to persist in the good practices he has established for himself, he must also be continually on his guard for even the most serious sins, such as theft, murder, adultery, and the like.