He explained why he was giving the interview, his first to an American news organization in a year, by saying: “To understand Hamas is to listen to its vision directly. Hamas is delighted when people want to hear from its leaders directly, not about the movement through others.”But that is nothing compared to the Times' interpretation of Meshal's political position vis a vis Israel:
That also seemed aimed at the Obama administration, which has decided to open a dialogue with Iran and Syria, but not with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts previous Palestinian-Israeli accords.
On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years.Oh, and he refuses to revoke the Hamas charter which calls on killing all Jews. But he said it is 20 years old, so the Times reporters interpret that as meaning "it doesn't apply anymore" - something he didn't say or even imply.
Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking. Israel rejects a full return to the 1967 borders, as well as a Palestinian right of return to Israel itself.
After all, the Quran is a bit older than that.
So Meshal wants to see Israel destroyed, he wants all Jews in the Middle East murdered, and he might be willing to offer a ten year pause for Israel to get destroyed demographically. The prestigious NYT, however, characterizes this as being virtually indistinguishable with the most moderate Arabs, and casts Israel as the intransigent party for not wanting to joyfully accept suicide.
Altogether, this was a true low for the New York Times.
(h/t EBoZ and Soccer Dad)