I see what you are saying. Perhaps a better way to think about it is "intimacy driven by fear," which isn't healthy love, but rather need. It explains the intensity of feelings and idealization, which is really objectification of the "non" partner.
That explanation makes much more sense to me. I feel like the phrase "fear of intimacy" shouldn't be used on it's own when describing BPD behavior and it should always be accompanied by "in the face of potential (perceived) abandonment" or something like that. It seems to be more the fear of the possibility of hurt due to the abandonment of an intimate partner than the intimacy itself, and you can't have one without the other.
I also feel like, at least with my ex, it was always the feeling that the intimacy was starting to subside for a time (which happens in every relationship) that caused her to perceive abandonment that wasn't there. This leads me to believe it's really just the abandonment that's the trigger, the intimacy just gives the abandonment the power to hurt. If it were possible to be present and intimate with someone 100% of the time I think she would never feel the abandonment, and therefore the intimacy really isn't the main issue, right?