What did Israel bomb in Syria? Plus: The "nuclear' blunder

Why did Israel bomb Syria in September? Larisa Alexandrovna reveals that the target was not a nuclear facility:

According to current and former intelligence sources, the US intelligence community has seen no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit.

US intelligence “found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present,” said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.

“We don't have any independent intelligence that it was a nuclear facility -- only the assertions by the Israelis and some ambiguous satellite photography from them that shows a building, which the Syrians admitted was a military facility.”

Adding to the confusion is a strange flap involving a misinterpreted Syrian representative at the U.N. His statement went from Arabic to French to English. The English version included a reference to the Israeli bombing of Syria's "nuclear" facilities. The word "nuclear" did not appear in the original.

Personally, I think this blunder was just that: A blunder. Not, as some say, a conspiracy. Granted, we've seen a suspicious number of "faulty translations" lately, but what goes on at the UN is not translation. It's all on-the-fly and unpremeditated.

One of my former loves was a translator, and she taught me a lot about her profession. Translation is written; interpretation is oral. In simultaneous interpretation (as opposed to the consecutive variety), the original speaker proceeds at his normal rate -- which may be quite rapid -- and does not pause to allow the interpreter to catch up. The UN uses simultaneous relay interpretation: One interpreter places the message into a common language, which is then re-interpreted into a host of other languages.

Simultaneous interpretation requires a zen-like state of mind, or mindlessness. One must suspend all sense of self. The brain barely has room enough for both the original message and the target language; all other thoughts must vanish. Under these circumstances, unconscious ideas -- perhaps gleaned from reading -- can sometimes intrude upon the work.

(My ex could not easily achieve that quasi-hypnotic state, and thus stuck to translation and the occasional consecutive interpretation gig.)

Within the profession, UN interpretation is considered quite prestigious. No-one who has attained that position would endanger it by knowingly misinterpreting an important statement. And there is no way this error could have slipped by unnoticed.

If you've ever seen Charade, you may recall the scene in which Audrey Hepburn impulsively walks out of her booth while doing simultaneous interpretation. Professionals cackle over that scene, because they all wish they could do the same thing. Of course, any interpreter -- even one as charming as Ms. Hepburn -- who tried a trick like that would never work again.