On the Islamist desire to destroy Israel

There are some points in one of Geary's paragraphs (see his  entire note at http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2010/06/flotilla-adventure.html) that I want to take up.  He wrote

"I am fanatically opposed to fanaticism of any shape.  I am my own worst enemy.  I despise Islamic fanaticism as well as Zionist fanaticism as well as American fanaticism -- you get the picture, I'm sure.  Is Hamas an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood?  Could be.  Don't know.  Don't care.  They are the democratically elected leaders of Gaza Strip.  The IDF is not, nor the Knesset, nor Washington.  If I were king of the world, I'd outlaw Likud and Hamas, in fact, I'd kill just about everybody, but I'm not king, so you'll just have to live and let live."

I'm not sure that the word "fanatic" will carry all the weight Geary wants to burden it with.  If we accept the Princeton (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) definition "excessive intolerance of opposing views," then Geary is guilty of that which he despises.

Wikipedia provides the following:  "Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. ..."   Here again Mike is guilty of that which he despises.  Note his response to a reference of Hamas deriving from the Muslim Brotherhood and the political philosophy of Sayyid Qutb:  "Could be.  Don't know.  Don't care."  For Mike, something undefined, something back behind his thoughts overrides history and philosophy.  Of course it doesn't override it in any real or factual sense.  It overrides it in the sense that Mike has resolved to ignore it.  When he doesn't know enough to argue an issue, he accomplishes his end by dismissing the issue as unimportant.

But is the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb really unimportant?   If the history of the Muslim world is examined then we see that Islam as a political force has become more and more activistic.  And Sayyid Qutb bears no small part in this burgeoning activism.   We learn from Qutb that Islam was interrupted after Mohammad and the Righteous Imams died.  Had they continued with the plan Mohammad laid out, Qutb tells us, then the entire world would be Muslim by now.  So if anyone considers himself a righteous Muslim, someone who expects to be with Mohammad in paradise, then he will sacrifice everything in order to continue Mohammad's great Jihad, the Jihad that must inevitably result in the Islamization of the entire world. 

Now when we apply this philosophy to the specific case of Israel, we see that Israel's existence becomes intolerable.  To recognize Israel would be to abandon Mohammad's Jihad, for once any land has been conquered by this Jihad, it is anathema for it to be given back or re-conquered by the Infidel.  Qutb-inspired Islamists fully plan, for example, to "get Andalusia back."   Less problematic, it has always seemed to the Islamists, would be the return of the land presently occupied by Israel to the followers of Mohammad.  Israel is after all a small nation, surely Allah will give his followers a victory over them eventually.  In the meantime, one, if one is a true believer, must never give up the Jihad, never cooperate with the Infidel, whether he be Jew or Westerner. 

Those of us who do care about Political philosophy see things differently than the "fanatical" Leftists who with "uncritical zeal" do not.  We are concerned about the Islamists, such as those who belong to Hamas, who have embraced Sayyid Qutb's philosophy, and the great Jihad that will conquer the world for Allah. 

Israel has been on a war-footing for virtually its entire existence.  How could it not be when the Arabia that surrounds it fervently desires its extinction.  And Leftists to not like war.  Deaths trump national security.  Yes, if Hamas were to gain a port so they could receive arms from Iran then Israel's existence would once again be threatened, but the deaths of those who attempted to keep Israeli officials from boarding their ship was far more important -- to Leftists.  For the rest of us, national existence has overriding importance.  If we are attacked, or threatened, then we, if we are responsible Western Leaders, take the necessary action to secure the safety of the nation.  And if attackers, or those who threaten our existence are killed then so be it.  They have, after all, the option of leaving us alone.

I have used the term "us" in regard to Israel.  This does not mean I am Jewish.  My daughter the genealogist has traced our ancestry back to England.  "Helm" was once the Middle English "Helme."  Other names like "Matthews," "Sparks," and "Houston" derive from Scotland, Wales and Ireland.  I use the term "us" because Israel is a Western nation.  It is a Liberal Democratic nation entirely consistent with the definition provided by Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man.  The allegations of "Fascism" are no more credible when applied to Israel than they are when Leftists in America apply the term to the President, when he happens to be a Republican.  And not being a fanatic but believing we should foster that which enhances our continued existence, I propose to support the Western-Nation Israel against the nations who have vowed to destroy it and all other Western Nations.