Israel Backs Indian Compromise on Korea; Sharett Favors West’s Proposal over Soviet’s

Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett today put Israel behind an Indian suggestion for establishment of a subcommittee to seek a compromise between conflicting Soviet and Western bloc resolutions on a Korean settlement.

“The task confronting us,” Mr. Sharett told the 60-member United Nations Political Committee in his first address on the Korean peace problem, “is not merely to secure a requisite majority but to devise a solution which will lay the foundations of lasting peace in Korea.” Admitting that this may be impossible, Mr. Sharett urged the delegates to make “a last attempt to achieve genuine understanding before the die has been cast.”

Mr. Sharett made clear, however, that Israel looked more favorably in general on the eight-power Western proposal than on the Soviet bloc’s. He emphasized that what he said might be a minority regime, that of Syngman Rhee, should not be “foisted on an unwilling parliament and a recalcitrant population.” But he backed the eight-nation proposal for U.N. intitiation and supervision of elections in Korea and opposed the Soviet proposition of withdrawal of U.N. troops and an election organized by North and South Koreans themselves.

Mr. Sharett also strongly implied that Israel felt that, in the absence of a cease-firo, the 38th Farallel should be crossed by U.N. troops “as a last resort.” He said the authority of the United Nations should be asserted without undue delay. He opposed the Soviet motion of demanding a cease-fire “from the belligerents in Korea.” The demand should be directed only to the North Koreans, he insisted.

VISHINSKY CHIDES ISRAEL FOREIGN MINISTER

Later, Soviet Foreign Minister Andre Y. Vishinsky took issue with several of the arguments pressed by Foreign Minister Sharett in his speech. The Israel delegate had noted the documents presented previously by Mr. Vishinsky, purporting to demonstrate that the South Koreans had been preparing an attack on the North, and drew a distinction between plans and intentions on the one hand and the actual carrying through of them on the other.

Mr. Vishinsky replied that his documents had shown “direct plans, troop movements, practical measures and action,” and stressed the principle of the presumption of action. He said that Mr. Sharett had been incorrect in calling this mere intention. At another point he chided the Israel leader for criticizing the Soviet proposal to have a party commission of North and South Koreans set up and supervise elections there. He said, in an apparent allusion to the Palestine case, that “aggressors” had been allowed a hearing and a participation in peace making before, even though the “aggressor” was defeated.

The Soviet Foreign Minister also attacked the nation that the North Koreans should not be invited to the U.N. and should not be involved in the peace-making because they were not recognized as a government by reforring to the activity of the Jewish Agency and the Arab High Committee in the Palestine negotiations. He said that they had acted as de facto governments even though they were not recognized as such.