Sarah died in Kiryat-Arba, now Hebron, in the land of Canaan; and Avraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her. . . (Beresheet 23:2).

Sarah died near Hevron and Avraham went to great lengths to purchase a burial site for her. This became known as the Cave of the Makhpelah, the “doubled cave,” where according to the Torah all the Matriarchs and Patriarchs- except for Rahel, who was interred in BetLehem - were buried.

Today, the building over those caves houses a mosque and a synagogue. Parts of this holy place date from the medieval period. Surrounding the Makhpelah is a city of about 120,000 people, mostly Arab, with a small Jewish settlement in the heart of the city.

Hevron was considered one of the four sacred cities of Eretz Yisrael. because of Arab attacks and murder, Jews left in 1929, always promising to return. After Jews regained control of the city in the Six Day War, resettlement was initially prohibited and then allowed in 1970. Just outside Hevron is a much larger Jewish town, Kiryat-Arba, mentioned in the verse above and now a busy community of thousands.

I was last in Hevron over twenty years ago. I led minhaqh and felt spiritually stirred by being in this sacred site. Machpelah is truly a place where one feels Jewish history. On the other hand, Hevron is the center of much controversy. The Jewish enclave in the heart of the city is surrounded by barbed wire and guards. Relations between the Jewish residents and their Arab neighbours was never good, but over the years it has become increasingly tense. Violence is always a real possibility. The dynamics that led to the Hevron massacre and to the killings of Muslims by Baruch Goldstein haven’t changed much,

In some ways, Hevron is the centre of Judea and the heart of ancient Israel. It is a key location of settlement activity and a hotspot of Arab rejection of Jewish settlement. When reading Torah, it is easy to imagine holy ancestral places, to feel a deep connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, our historic homeland. It’s much harder to remember that the sacred sites of the Torah are now locations where real people live complicated lives. As Rabbi Neal Loevinger observed, “There is the eternal Hevron, the site of Avraham’s purchase from Ephron the Hittite, and there is the earthly Hevron, where conflict between Avraham’s children is exacerbated by poor leadership and extremism on both sides”.

Hevron is symbolic of an internal Jewish debate about the nature of Zionism and the State of Israel. One perspective emphasizes the particularistic connection of the Jewish people to its land and history. It is nationalist and proud of our return to the Land of Israel, and particularly, to Judea and Samaria. The other Zionism is the more universal and humanist with a strong awareness that another people shares the land and with a desire to live by the ideals of justice and peace for all residents. Even within the two camps, there are those who incline to one side of the continuum or the other.

A debate about liberal Zionism took place at Holy Blossom Temple on Thursday night. It was stimulating and substantive. Holy Blossom is to be commended for sponsoring this event. Moderated by Heather Reisman, the discussion featured Peter Beinart and Daniel Gordis. Many of you have read my friend Danny’s essays on-line, in the NYTimes,  in the Jerusalem Post, or in his book, Dispatches from an Anxious State. Beinart may not be as well known to you. He is a professor of journalism and formerly was the editor in chief of the political-literary magazine, The New Republic

Peter Beinart's June 10 essay in the New York Review of Books lamented the demise of liberal Zionism in Israel and criticized Diaspora Jewish leadership for not criticizing this development in Israel. Beinart claims that there has been a shift away from Israel by young American Jews and  attributes their discomfort to unhappiness about settlements and  the occupation, as well as the perception by young adults that Israel does not want to make peace with or grant dignity to the Palestinians.

Beinart claims that Diaspora Jews shut-out the voices of intellectuals fighting to maintain Israel's liberal democratic character, and that Jewish leaders and commentators too easily throw around words like anti-Israel. To Beinart, if you want Israel to disappear as a Jewish state you're anti-Israel. Being a fierce critic is something else.

Beinart wants Israel to avoid actions that foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, because if it is does that it will become -- and he quotes Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak --an "apartheid state." The more the settlements expand, the more residents of the West Bank --including fanatical settlers--take over parts of the Israeli bureaucracy and become integral to the Israeli army and rabbinate. This makes the prospect of removing those settlers without outright civil war more challenging. Moreover, it's not just the growth and increased radicalization of the settlers that are problematic, it's the emergence of a political coalition led by the Prime Minister that is determined to protect them and make a Palestinian state impossible.

Beinart is an observant Jew from an Egyptian background who wants his children to be committed Zionists. He argues that the best way to undermine Hizbollah and Hamas is to give hope to those Palestinians and Muslims who want a two-state solution. He believes Fayyad, and Abbas represent such leadership.  However, continued settlement growth, which convinces Palestinians that they will never have their own state on most of the West Bank, is self-destructive. Beinart wants the major Diaspora Jewish groups to say so, loudly. Instead, they deny that settlements are even a problem. That, he believes, alienates young Jews.

Sociological literature, shows (Steven Cohen) "a mounting body of evidence pointed to a growing distance from Israel of American Jews and the distancing seems to be most pronounced among younger Jews." Cohen concludes that "we are in the midst of a massive shift in attitudes toward Israel propelled forward by the process of cohort replacement, where the maturing younger cohorts that are least Israel-engaged are replacing the oldest cohorts that are the most Israel-engaged." The recent Avi Chai report by Jack Wertheimer confirms this shift in commitment.

In some ways you have heard this argument before, as Rav Harvey and I have spoken up about the need for a loving and critical perspective on Israel. In the discussion on Thursday night, Rabbi Daniel Gordis acknowledged this growing discomfort and the distance that young non-Orthodox Jewish adults feel. However, Gordis contends, they and many others - Jews and non-Jews – need to better understand the situation of Israel before passing judgment.

Gordis pointed out that there is a world of difference between the cities of Maaleh Adumim, Bet El  and Gush Etzion and the small outlying developments – some of which are populated by radical  settlers. Gordis agreed that those outlying settlements are problematic and that various Israeli policies are discriminatory against Israeli Arabs. However, he contended that liberal-oriented American Jews are naive when they think that the Palestinians are blameless in this morass.  Why should Israeli believe in the possibility of peace, after the debacle at Camp David in 2000, after the subsequent Intifada, after the withdrawal from Lebanon and the subsequent attacks from Hizbollah in the north, and after the Gaza withdrawal and the subsequent rise of Hamas and the rocket attacks on the south of Israel?

Gordis pointed to three existential threats: Hamas/Hizbollah, Iranian nuclear capacity and the international effort to delegitimize Israel.

He and Beinart agree that Israel is a democracy with freedom of speech, in a part of the world in which gays are murdered for being gay; in which cartoonists are condemned to death; in which press freedom is practically nonexistent. Beinart agrees that Israel struggles to survive in this harsh atmosphere.

Gordis recognizes that Israel is deeply imperfect. For instance, in its attempt to stop Hamas from firing rockets at its own civilians, it killed many Palestinian civilians. However, he asks, does this really compare to the rhetoric and actions of Israel's enemies? Do the actions of Hamas, Hizbollah and other terrorists really compare to the building of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem?  Moreover, we now know that the Israeli ratio of “collateral damage” is far lower than the ratio of killed civilians by Americans, Brits and Canadians.

Jeffrey Goldberg says that this is a question about proportionality, about the unseemly interest the left takes in Israel's moral failings. Gordis demanded to know: can you name another country, facing the same types of enemies, that does a better job protecting individual rights and freedoms while at war with a foe that seeks its physical elimination? The reality is that there are organizations and countries trying to physically eliminate the Jewish state. Even with this existential problem, Israel still manages to be the freest and most democratic state in the Middle East, and one that even grants its Muslim citizens the right to build minarets and wear burqas, unlike many countries in Europe.

Gordis also reminded people that the world is bigger than radical Jews. As we have again seen in just the past days, the world has its share of Muslim extremists -- the ones who send bombs from Yemen to Chicago synagogues, or the ones, for instance, who are pointing 40,000 rockets at Israel from Lebanon right now. They are not pointing these rockets at Israel in order to bring about the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. They are seeking the physical destruction of almost six million Jews in their historic homeland. You don't have to be an Israeli extremist to believe that, despite the existence of Palestinian moderates, the Arab side is not enamoured with the ideas of peace and compromise.

Acknowledging the detachment of young, non-Orthodox American Jews from Israel, Gordis points to studies that show that the Jewish young adults who visit Israel each year on Birthright trips come back with strong and durable pro-Israel feelings. He calls on congregations such as Holy Blossom and Beth Tzedec to purchase apartments in Israel that can be claimed by congregants in time-share arrangements so that we can build deeper attachments to a real Israel- not just the Israel of hotels and tourist sites.

In sum, Beinart contends that for most non-Orthodox secular young Jews, the choice is not between a critical Zionism and an uncritical Zionism. It's between a critical Zionism and no Zionism. At core, Gordis argues that the prime responsibility of a Jewish liberal writer is to defend Israel against its critics and to educate young Jews to be a bit more pro-family, to be proud Zionists who love the Jewish state.

As Peter and Daniel made their points, I felt myself agreeing with each one, but I felt that Rabbi Gordis was more realistic. Perhaps because he chose to make aliyah and to live in the midst of the struggle.

I thought of the efforts of Avraham to build a clan and to stake out a claim to land. At the same time, he is trying to arrange a marriage partner for his child and build a future for his family based on the core value of hesed. That love and kindness extends to the Other, those who are not part of our family. One thing is for sure - Hevron will be at the critical core of the future of Jewish-Arab relations- “if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere”!

Click here to see highlights of the debate, or to see the debate in its entirety. http://vimeo.com/16889205