LAKE SUCCESS (Jan. 31)
Israel was one of 44 nations which in the historic meeting of the United Nations Political Committee late last night voted to charge Communist China with an act of aggression in Korea. Israel, however, abstained on a, paragraph of the United States-sponsored resolution which calls for the consideration of instituting sanctions against the Peking regime.
An Israel delegation spokesman said today that these were the main points that governed Israel’s attitude on the Korean voting in the United Nations Political Committee:
1. Once the question of Chinese aggression in Korea had been raised, it was necessary to take a stand. There night be a question as to whether the issue should have been raised at that moment or not, but the United Nations could not buck the problem once it had been forced to a vote by the United States. With Israel, there was a question of self-interest. It had been the victim of aggression once and it had been told frequently that it might become a victim again. It would be inconceivable for Israel not to take a stand where the facts are clear.
Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett gave central importance to the condemnation of aggression in his policy speech to the General Assembly last fall. Israel was specially concerned with the question whether the introduction of volunteers, as the Chinese called their forces in China, since Arab aggression against Israel had started with the introduction of so-called volunteers. Israel therefore had to take a stand on that subject.
2. Israel believed that non-acceptance of the United States resolution when it was forced to a vote would have meant the contrary, that the United Nations were the aggressors in Korea. A rejection of the resolution would have undermined the whole United nations effort against aggression in Korea.
3. Israel believed, still insists, and at all times has urged that the methods of negotiation aimed at a peaceable settlement should be placed above punitive measures. As a matter of fact, many delectations acknowledged that the frequent Israel interventions in the debate had contributed significantly to shifting the emphasis in the resolution and the American attitude from concern with further sanction measures to continued negotiations.
4. Israel felt that even at the end it was not clear whether Peiping fully accepted the Arab-Asian resolution for big-power negotiations in its finally amended form which called for a cases first. Information on Peiping’s views were communicated to the committee, sometimes rather obliquely, by the Indian delegation, the Israel spokesman pointed out.