Shahak contends that American Jews "deify" the state of Israel, thereby losing their ability to constructively criticize policies they would oppose in other situations. His writing on that subject is explosive. He asserted in a bulletin published by his group in 1972 that "the majority of fellow Jews... worship the material State of Israel like our ancestors worshipped the Golden Calf and Baal."

Although Shahak's activities certainly arouse controversy and anger in the Israeli political arena, he avoids political alignment with any group. Labeling himself as a fiscally conservative "anti-Marxist," he nevertheless works closely with many socialists and communists, including outspoken lawyer Felicia Langer, whose defense of the many Palestinians brought before Israeli tribunals has made her one of the most prominent members of the Israeli peace movement.

While the Israeli faction headed by spokesmen such as Shahak and Langer remains very visible and vocal, it is still a tiny minority. Shahak said he expects the group's impact to remain at its present low level for the next several years. He estimates that the active membership of his own group is no more than a few hundred, although many more would rally to his cause, Shahak adds, if matters really came to a head--in the event of another war, for example. He characterizes the current mood in Israel as one of apathy that has "put the peace movement as a whole into retreat for two years now, as the elections have shown."

Israel's internal reaction against the relaxation of political demands and social structures comes at a time when President Carter's emphasis on human rights and his pressure on the Israeli government to soften its line vis-a-vis the Palestinians has focused greater attention than ever before on specifics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The issue of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, allegations of torture raised against the Israeli military authorities by Palestinians and Red Cross workers, and louder murmurs of distrust among Third World states due to Israel's friendship with South Africa, are all facets of this new attention.

In such a context, Shahak's actions seem calculated to make more enemies than ever, but he says the mood of apathy on the one hand, and the partial improvement in the human rights situation within Israel on the other, has lessened the harassment of him personally and has stopped the "persecution" of his group. Yet according to Shahak, this change in atmosphere is not due to a greater awareness among the Israeli people of the linkage of human rights to Israel's survival--an issue the professor regards as crucial.

He places a large share of the blame for this attitude on the American government and people. Continued support of the U.S. administration for "the Israeli prime minister, whoever he is," weakens the drive for peace and human rights as it fills the Israeli trade gap of $3.5 billion per year, Shahak said.

Shahak is anything but optimistic about the chances for a political solution in the near future. He anticipates war within the next year and paints a bleak scenario.

"In the next war there are only two possibilities. One is a victory a la [Israeli Prime Minister Manahem] Begin, which means smashing the armies of the confrontation states, conquering Jordan and dismembering Syria and Lebanon into several small states which will be ruled with the help of minorities. In such a situation the oil states will become very afraid and they will ask the United States to save them. The United States will rush--by invitation--to save Kuwait and perhaps other places, and once you 'save' them you will continue to 'save' them for a long time," he predicted.

"The second alternative is a repetition of the Day of Atonement war, something inconclusive after which Israel without Begin will come to the United States on their knees and ask for the Rogers Plan," Shahak said. "So I think the United States cannot lose either way--it also in the long run cannot win. But the lone power in the Middle East is the U.S. and everyone knows it."

Shahak speaks very matter-of-factly about what he believes are the intentions of his own government. He describes Menahem Begin as a man who believes in war. "He is honest to his principles and he is committed to the principle that Jordan is a part of the land of Israel and should be made a part of the Jewish state. Not only the PLO has a covenant--the Herut [Begin's party] has also had a covenant since 1948," Shahak said, which includes the notion that both sides of the Jordan belong by right to Israel.

At the same time that he scores the Israeli government, however, Shahak has some strong criticism to level at the Palestinians. He is especially critical of the PLO's use of the slogan "democratic secular state," for Shahak claims the Palestinians have never defined or explained the concept in print to his satisfaction.

Shahak says he is "an Israeli Jew working in his community, and my political duty is to try to make my community understand the Palestinian demands. I am continually faced by the question of what Palestinians mean by the word 'secular'--since it has not been explained. If not followed by clarification, the word 'secular' in the world-famous slogan not only does not evoke understanding inside this community--it evokes contempt."

Shahak views the upswing in "religious fanaticism," among both Muslims in the Arab nations and the Jews in Israel, with dismay. He is skeptical of just what "secularism" is taken to mean. He recalls a PLO custom in pre-civil-war Labanon. When a Palestinian fighter died in combat, his funeral procession would be led by a Muslim mufti [religious leader] and a Christian priest walking hand in hand. "This doesn't mean secularity," Shahak concludes with a laugh. "'Secular' means, for people like me, putting the clergy in their place."

Shahak's enemies have accused him at various times of being a demagogue, a madman and a traitor. Amnon Rubenstein, dean of Tel Aviv University Law School, wrote in Haaretz, a major Israeli daily, in 1974 that, "Many of us rightly regard his activities... as a mental perversion, something which is so utterly disgusting that it does not even deserve comment." Rubenstein went on to say that although he would not put Shahak on trial for fear of making him a martyr, "I have no doubt that there is much evidence--at least prima facie -- that justifies bringing Shahak to trial on a charge of treason."

Even if Shahal is a demagogue, his speech-making is only an accompaniment to his actions. After his lecture tour ends in mid-October, Shahak will return to his teaching and the peace movement in Israel. He says he believes that very little can be accomplished outside one's own country. He illustrates his point by noting that the Soviet Union expels its dissidents.

Perhaps Shahak's unruly teddy-bear appearance belies his public identity as a "dangerous" critic of the Israeli status quo; perhaps his thick accent and inattention to English syntax when speaking camouflages the eloquence of his pleas for human rights. Although he might appear less at home in a law court or a police detention center than in the chemistry lab (where the Israeli government, no doubt, fervently wishes he would remain), Israel Shahak's championing of human rights gives him the composure of someone who is doing what he believes in--and he directs advice to listeners from that perspective.

"There is much evidence--at least prima facie--that justifies bringing Shahak to trial on a charge of treason."--Amnon Rubenstein, 1974.

To Americans, he says, "As an American you will be drawn into the situation, sucked into the vortex, whether you want it or not. You will be faced with it sooner or later. The more you as Americans--both personally and collectively-- withdraw into silence, the more the problem will catch you. I advise you to try to defend both the Jews in the Soviet Union and the Palestinians in occupied territories."

To his own countrymen he gives another warning--this from a bulletin written in 1972, but similar to what he is still saying:

"It pains me very much that such a great part of my people are in what I can only describe as a state of apostasy. Instead of worshipping God and only God, instead of following and being true to the idea of Justice... they are not only doing the reverse, not only taking refuge in the most crude tribalism and worship of force, but literally cutting the branch on which they are sitting, I say to them: By your hypocrisy and double-thinking, by your condoning and supporting racism and oppression, you are bringing a calamity on your own heads. Everything that is done to Palestinian-Arabs, with your encouragement and support today, will be done to yourselves tomorrow."