My regular haftarah tutor is busy tonight and tomorrow. If anyone out there has an hour or two to spare, and wants to help me learn, I’d be happy to chant haftarah at you, either by phone, Google Talk, or Skype.

I learn better with someone to listen and correct me. I’ll be available from about 7 to midnight Eastern time.

Earlier when I wrote about the discovery that Syria was cleaning up the site I was put off by the nay sayers who argued

“This isn’t like a Road Runner cartoon where you call up Acme Reactors and they deliver a functioning reactor to your back yard. It takes years to build,” said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. “This is an extremely demanding technology, and I don’t think Syria has the technical, engineering or financial base to really support such a reactor.”

and

“The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility.”

But waiting for the Syrians to realize that they ought not be building a reactor for plutonium or for the IAEA to act would gain the Israelis little. Better strike when there’s a less significant threat than when it’s close to realization. However, Meryl wasn’t as cynical and credited the reporters for a job well done. Quoting John Bolton questioning Syrian motives was effective too.

But John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said Syria’s secrecy — including its apparent move to clean up the site after the bombing — suggests that Damascus is pursuing a strategy similar to that of Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Bolton said Iran once attempted to conceal nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors by bulldozing nuclear-related buildings and even digging up nearby topsoil to remove all traces of nuclear material. “The common practice for people with legitimate civilian nuclear power programs is to be transparent, because they have nothing to hide,” Bolton said.

Most significantly the reporter noted at the beginning

Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack. Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria’s eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a “signature” or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.

These apparently weren’t only American officials who recognized the “signature” of the structure. So it seems that regardless of how far along the Syrians were (about which there’s disagreement) there was a consensus about the nature of the structure. Late in the article there’s this significant bit of information:

The IAEA has not been provided any evidence about the Syrian facility and has been unable to obtain any reliable details about the Sept. 6 strike, said a European diplomat familiar with the agency’s internal discussions.

So according to the Washington Post there’s an American consensus based on photographic evidence that the facility Israel destroyed was nuclear and the IAEA didn’t have any further informatin. So it’s *not* surprising that before the day is out, the IAEA reveals that it does have pictures and, at first glance, they don’t show a nuclear facility. The AP reported

U.N. experts have obtained satellite imagery of the site struck last month by Israeli warplanes and are analyzing it for signs that it might have been a secret nuclear facility, diplomats said Friday. One of the diplomats, who is linked to the International Atomic Energy Agency — the U.N. nuclear watchdog looking at the images — said IAEA experts were looking at commercial images, disputing earlier suggestions that they had come from U.S. intelligence. Separately, two diplomats said the images, acquired Thursday, did not at first examination appear to substantiate reports that the target was a nuclear installation, but emphasized that the photos were still under examination. All of those who spoke to The Associated Press were briefed on the agency’s receipt of the images but demanded anonymity because their information was confidential. Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog and the U.S. diplomatic mission to the IAEA had no comment.

So just when the Washington Post reports that the IAEA doesn’t know anything more about the Syrian site, the IAEA leaks information, and, surprise! its experts say that there’s nothing nuclear about the site. Then in case anyone didn’t get that, instead of a news story, this was an IAEA press release, AP includes this:

The investigation by the IAEA is crucial because it is the first instance of an independent and respected organization looking at the evidence and trying to reach a conclusion as to what was hit.

As HotAir responds

I guess that depends on what you mean by “independent” and “respected.” I don’t find the IAEA to be either one.

The AP report seems awfully convenient from the standpoint of the IAEA. It’s geared toward staving off embarrassment and feigning relevance. Until there’s something more substantial from IAEA, I’ll assume that it is trying to bolster its image regardless of the truth.

The Raw Story (h/t the Hashmonean) dismisses the American allegations as fabrications of Dick Cheney. Clearly the Raw Story has an ax to grind here, and I don’t find its treatment especially convincing.

UPDATE: added the word *not* above.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Syria is taking the ruins of the “unused military buildings” that were bombed by the IAF, and putting them where the IAEA will never find them. (Of course, they could FedEx them to Mohammed El Baradei, and he still would be unable to find any evidence of Syrian nukes, but that’s a different post altogether.)

Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack.

Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria’s eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a “signature” or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.

The dismantling of the damaged site, which appears to be still underway, could make it difficult for weapons inspectors to determine the precise nature of the facility and how Syria planned to use it. Syria, which possesses a small reactor used for scientific research, has denied seeking to expand its nuclear program. But U.S. officials knowledgeable about the Israeli raid have described the target as a nuclear facility being constructed with North Korean assistance.

In an example of presenting both sides of the issue, the WaPo writers have given us an unintentionally funny couple of paragraphs. Please note that I am not making fun of the writers. This is actually an example of good journalism. But it’s hilarious without meaning to be.

While expressing concern over the prospect that Syria may have decided to launch a nuclear program in secret, some weapons experts question why neither Israel nor the United States made any effort before the secret attack — or in the six weeks since — to offer evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a move that would trigger an inspection of Syria by the nuclear watchdog.

“The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility.”

Hm. Why not bring the Syria case to the IAEA? Let’s think. Can we think of another Middle Eastern country that has a secret nuclear weapons program? One that the IAEA has consistently certified as “peaceful” even when presented with evidence to the contrary, or when refused oversight that would prove whether or not it was meant to produce nuclear weapons? Think, think, think. The name of the country begins with an “I.”

But John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said Syria’s secrecy — including its apparent move to clean up the site after the bombing — suggests that Damascus is pursuing a strategy similar to that of Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Bolton said Iran once attempted to conceal nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors by bulldozing nuclear-related buildings and even digging up nearby topsoil to remove all traces of nuclear material.

“The common practice for people with legitimate civilian nuclear power programs is to be transparent, because they have nothing to hide,” Bolton said.

Really, this is a well-written story, and the way that reporting should be. I’ve had my problems with Robin Wright in the past, but I have no problems with this particular article. Kudos for objectivity and fairness, as well as thoroughness on the subject.

So after showing a bunch of credulous reporters an agricultural site, Syria’s now cleaning up the real site of the Israeli attack.

Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack.Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria’s eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a “signature” or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.

Interesting, now there seems little doubt what the facility was for.

The dismantling of the damaged site, which appears to be still underway, could make it difficult for weapons inspectors to determine the precise nature of the facility and how Syria planned to use it.

You think?

While U.S. officials express increasing confidence that the Syrian facility was nuclear-related, divisions persist within the government and among weapons experts over the significance of the threat. If the facility was a nuclear reactor, U.S. weapons experts said it would almost certainly have taken Syria several years to complete the structure, and much longer to produce significant quantities of plutonium for potential use in nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors also are used to generate electricity.”This isn’t like a Road Runner cartoon where you call up Acme Reactors and they deliver a functioning reactor to your back yard. It takes years to build,” said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. “This is an extremely demanding technology, and I don’t think Syria has the technical, engineering or financial base to really support such a reactor.”

And that’s a reason why Israel ought to have waited and made sure that it wasn’t a threat before acting. Well maybe Syria can’t support a reactor.

While expressing concern over the prospect that Syria may have decided to launch a nuclear program in secret, some weapons experts question why neither Israel nor the United States made any effort before the secret attack — or in the six weeks since — to offer evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a move that would trigger an inspection of Syria by the nuclear watchdog.”The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility.”

Could it be that it’s because the IAEA is an effective international body. What would that collective response be? A written expression of disappointment? That’s bound to be quite effective. Surely it would deter someone who’s assassinating politicians in a neighboring country in order to affect that country’s internal politics.

The article later notes:

Some experts speculate that Israeli and U.S. officials may have calculated that reporting their intelligence to the IAEA would have produced only limited repercussions, the equivalent of a diplomatic slap on the wrist to Syria, which might have decided to build the facility anyway.

I really don’t think you need to be an expert to come to that conclusion.

Foreign sources familiar with the attack say Israel wanted to send a strong message to Iran about the price of developing a secret nuclear program. Israel is increasingly alarmed about Iran’s intentions and frustrated that the international community has not persuaded Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

(emphasis mine)I think this confirms what those “experts,” quoted above, were arguing.

If North Korea is shown to have helped with the construction of a Syrian reactor, it would suggest that the Pyongyang government has been secretly hawking its nuclear know-how to the Syrians for years, several experts said. But even if North Korea’s involvement is proved, it is unlikely that the Bush administration would halt negotiations with Pyongyang over dismantling its nuclear program, the experts said.”The Bush administration has clearly decided not to let this incident deter them from trying to limit North Korea’s nuclear activity,” said Gary Samore, a National Security Council member under President Bill Clinton who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yes, but if North Korea was involved it may change how the United State would to to limit North Korea’s nuclear activity.

The Raw Story has gone to town with a statement President Bush made about not remembering the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor. (via memeorandum)

Maybe the President doesn’t. But the Vice-President does. And Israel certainly does to. Syria presented a threat, maybe not an immediate one. Nothing was going to deter Syria short of denying it its program. So Israel acted.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The last group of a total of close to 100 Palestinian refugees who lived in Iraq, but had to flee to the Jordanian desert, have arrived in Brazil. The 25 refugees are being settled in the southeastern state of São Paulo and in Rio Grande do Sul state, in the Brazilian South.Another group of 36 had arrived earlier this month after the first 35 Palestinians who came to Brazil in September. All of them were sent by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The Brazilian government will offer the Palestinian refugees financial help for two years as well as Portuguese classes. They will also be receiving accommodations and medical care.

The refugee agency says Jordan’s Ruweished camp, where the refugees lived, will be shut down in the coming weeks.

Many Arab and Western countries with strict immigration policies have refused to host the Palestinian refugees.

The UN has two agencies dedicated to refugees: UNHCR and UNRWA. The UNRWA is dedicated exclusively to Palestinian Arabs, while the UNHCR takes care of everyone else worldwide.

While specific refugee populations around the world have dwindled, only the “refugees” under UNRWA responsibility have increased.
The reasons are simple: UNRWA defined Palestinian Arab “refugees” to include descendants of the original 700,000 refugees, the UNRWA has morphed from an organization that truly wanted to solve the refugee problem into one that only wants to perpetuate it to keep its bureaucracy in existence (it is mostly staffed by Palestinian Arabs;) and the neighboring Arab countries refuse to resettle their Arab “brethren” to live in peace and dignity, preferring to keep them in limbo for 60 years.

This story shows that the UNHCR actually takes its job seriously, trying hard to find a way for its refugees to become normal members of society. It shows that Brazil has more empathy for Palestinian Arabs than any Arab country. Above all, it shows the utter corruption and hypocrisy of the UNRWA and all Arab countries who refuse to truly solve the original refugee problem.

One year ago I found an Arabic editorial upset over the resettlement of some 46 Iraqis of Palestinian origin to Canada, because happy PalArabs mean less “unity”. The editorial proved the hypocrisy of the Arab world and how much they want the Palestinian Arabs to suffer as a strategy. I’ve also pointed out how the Arabs have turned their backs on the Iraqis of Palestinian origin for years.
This story is a damning indictment of the Arab world and the UNRWA, and yet more proof of their pure hypocrisy as they do everything they can to perpetuate Palestinian Arab suffering while they pontificate about how much they love them. Hundreds of millions of Arabs over hundreds of millions of square miles have institutionalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs for decades, the UNRWA perpetuates the problem, and the world is silent.

Just breaking …

Christopher Pine has been cast to play the young Captain Kirk in the next Star Trek movie.

The bridge of the starship Enterprise is filling up.

Chris Pine, who had been in talks to join the cast of J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” flick, will play the young James Kirk, while Karl Urban will take on the role of Dr. Leonard McCoy, distributor Paramount confirmed Thursday.They join previously announced cast members Zachary Quinto as Vulcan scientist Spock, Simon Pegg as engineer Scotty, John Cho as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana as communications officer Uhura and Anton Yelchin as navigator Chekov.

Leonard Nimoy, who played Enterprise science officer Spock in the 1960s TV series and six “Star Trek” feature films, also will appear as an older version of the Vulcan.

Eric Bana, the star of Steven Spielberg’s “Munich” and Ang Lee’s “Hulk,” is playing a villain in the “Trek” film, which begins shooting in November and is due out in December 2008.

They couldn’t find someone named Christopher Pike?

UPDATE: It occurred to me that if Nimoy will be playing an older Spock, the story will likely be told as a flashback. So in the framing story will Spock have returned to the Federation or will he still be, where we last saw him, fomenting revolution on Romulus?

UPDATE: I know nothing of these actors, but someone isn’t happy with the choices. (h/t Transterrestial Musings)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.