From prof. Richard Rubenstein

Over the years, a
number of Muslim religious leaders, whom I regarded as "moderate," who were willing
to enter into dialogue with Jews and Christians at inter-religious
conferences. In no case was there one who did not look forward to the
eventual demise of the State of Israel and the reincorporation of its
territory into dar al-Islam, the abode of Islam. Example, two distinguished Muslim authorities, Professor Ismail
al-Faruqi (1921-1986) and Sheikh M. A. Zaki Badawi (1922-2006). Badawi, a
graduate of al-Azhar University in Cairo with a doctorate in Modern Muslim
Thought from the University of London, served as the principal of London's
Muslim College. In its obituary, the Guardian newspaper called him
"Britain's most influential Muslim."[i] He was also an Honorary Knight
Commander of the Order of the British Empire. One
evening, Zaki Badawi interrupted our train of conversation by unexpectedly
bringing up the subject of Israel. "They'll really have to go, you know," he
informed me. His wife, an English convert to Islam, added, "Like the
Crusades." He was unwilling to specify where they would go, save "back where
they came from." There was no point in arguing with him or ponting out the
genocidal subtext of his response. Other Muslim scholars had told me the
same thing, but none had his standing or authority. While Badawi lived he
was the Muslim representative who appeared with the Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Williams and the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sachs on ceremonial
occasions. Zaki Badawi was too skilled a diplomat publicly to advocate a
position on the Middle East with long-term genocidal consequences.

If I were a Muslim, I would claim that this land is, as stated in the
charter of Hamas, an irrevocable, sacred trust (waqf) granted by Allah for
all eternity to those who believe in him. (Avalon Project of the Yale Law
School, 'Hamas Covenant 1988,' Chapter 11,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp .) " I am not Muslim. I
believe the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine is a zero-sum game. Any
concession Jews make will be treated with contempt as evidence of weakness
and serve as a goad to further demands until there is nothing left.



Moreover,
there is no such thing as an impartial international community, especially
where Jews are concerned. There are only states with different interests
which sometimes conflict. Unfortunately, all too many Jews do not
understand that when one is faced with a mortal foe who promises your
community annihilation-as all too many Muslims have done from the birth of
the State of Israel until today- then we owe such foes absolutely nothing,
because they have repeatedly announced in advance that they owe us nothing
and they will use your conscience, which restrains your action, as part of
their weapon against you.



Nevertheless, I don't believe in gratuitously destroying, but I most
certainly believe in doing whatever is necessary to make sure that Israel
has a relatively secure future. I would also add that one of the things
that Jews fail to understand - as Ben Gurion's understood about
mamlachtiyut, about sovereignty - when a people becomes an independent
nation, they entered into a situation in which war is always possible. If
an adversary cannot get what it wants through negotiation, it may attempt to
do so through war. Moreover, there are many ways of fighting a war. When
the Muslim world uses propaganda to defame Jews, it is fighting a war. When
it uses anti-Semitism to attack world Jewry, it is fighting a war. Its
logic is clear. It knows that world Jewry, more or less, supports the State
of Israel. Even if they don't agree politically, they still support it
financially. So, in order to destroy the State of Israel, they will do
their best to weaken, and perhaps, destroy world Jewry, and that's as plain
to me as can be. Unfortunately, Jews don't understand this, because they
have had no experience with sovereignty and politics for 2,000 years.