One argument Israel did not make is one that W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School suggested that Israel might have tried, namely, a claim of a state of war from 1948. “If a state of war exists,” said Reisman, “a belligerent need not wait until its adversary strikes in order to respond militarily, but is entitled, itself, to select the moment of initiation or resumption of overt conflict.” By that analysis, Israel would need no justification relating to the events of 1967. As we saw in Chapter 6, when Egypt in the 1950s argued a continuing state of war in relation to its restrictions on Suez Canal shipping, Israel objected, and the Security Council sided with Israel. So it would hardly have been consistent for Israel to invoke the state of war argument in 1967.

Confusion over Israel's Claim

Israel came to the Security Council asserting facts that potentially could support any one of four justifications: an actual Egyptian attack on June 5, an imminent Egyptian attack, Egypt's shipping restrictions as an actual attack, and Egypt's mid-May acts in their totality as an actual attack. A state using military force and asserting self-defense is required to report immediately to the UN Security Council to explain itself. Often this is done by a written document. That would have been awkward for Israel, since it was asserting a basis – an actual Egyptian attack that morning – as a temporary argument it did not expect to sustain indefinitely. Nonetheless, as we saw in Chapter 9, Israel's UN Representative Rafael did make a formal self-defense claim orally under Article 51, citing the supposed actual attack of June 5 by Egypt. Egypt's recent moves were recited as supporting this claim of an actual attack.