The Times seems to blame the Israelis for failing to understand that the moderate Rohani did not use the word "wound" but in fact said "sore", which of course is more moderate or something.  Also, Rouhani didn't refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumour" either, so in case I'm not the only one who can understand that as perhaps being a tad threatening, you and I should be comforted that we're just into sores of some unknown degree--but they are not wounds or cancerous tumours. 

Given my tongue in cheek, here's the article in full:

TEHRAN — Iranian leaders have often called Israel a “cancerous tumor” that “should be wiped from the pages of time.” But on Friday, the country’s incoming president, Hassan Rouhani, struck a more moderate tone, by merely calling the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands “a sore.”

¶Attending a celebration for the annual pro-Palestinian holiday in Iran known as Quds Day, named after the Arabic name for Jerusalem, Mr. Rouhani, said: “In our region, a sore has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world for many years, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. This day is in fact a reminder of the fact that Muslim people will not forgot their historic right and will continue to stand against aggression and tyranny.”

¶His comments were captured in a video by state television. However, local Iranian media reported the comments differently. They quoted Mr. Rouhani as saying the “Zionist regime is a sore which must be removed.” Later in the day they posted corrections.

¶But Israel had already responded, reporting that Mr. Rouhani had said that Israel “has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and should be removed.”

¶“Rouhani’s true face has been revealed earlier than expected,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said in a statement. “Even if they will now rush to deny his remarks, this is what the man thinks and this is the plan of the Iranian regime.”

¶He said the comments underscored that regardless of the change of leadership in Iran, it continued to pursue the goal of achieving “nuclear weapons in order to threaten Israel, the Middle East and the peace and security of the entire world.”

¶“A country that threatens the destruction of the State of Israel must not be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction,” the statement concluded.¶Mr. Rouhani has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the tensions with other countries caused by the departing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is, however, a firm supporter of Iran’s Islamic system and in his several books he denounces Israel.

I have changed the headline a third time to this little news piece so that it is as accurate as I can make it. 

Forgive my tribalism, but I will quote now in full from an Iranian Jew, Meir Javedanfar, who is now a citizen of the State of Israel, on what was actually said (we think) by Rouhani:

This morning, the Iran based Mehr news published  a story (right) in which they quoted Iran’s newly elected president in their headline as saying:

روحانی: اسرائیل زخمی است بر پیکر جهان اسلام که باید از بین برود

Exact translation:

Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed.
Since then a video has emerged in which it seems that Rouhani was misquoted by Mehr.
In the video,  according to the indispensable Iran Pulse publication of Al Monitor , Rouhani actually says:
“Quds day, which is in memorial of Imam [Khomeini], is a day that people present the unity of Islam against any type of oppression or aggression. And in any case, in our region, it is an old wound that has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. And this day, in fact, is a remembrance that Muslim people will not forget this historical right and will always stand against oppression and aggression.”
He does not say that this wound must be removed, as Mehr news originally reported. Nor does he actually mention Israel or the “Zionist regime” as Mehr and then ISNA quoted him as saying. Since then Mehr has corrected its story and used the actual quote instead. So has ISNA.
Its possible that Mehr and ISNA were sloppy in their reporting. Its also possible that some of the reporters wanted to embarrass Rouhani by misquoting him. No one knows. But he was misquoted .
To the Iranian regime, there is no difference between Israel’s legal post 1948 borders and land captured and occupied after 1967. To the Iranian government, all of Israel is occupied Palestinian land.  Rouhani who is supposed to be a moderate has never made that distinction.
Therefore his latest statement is deeply offensive to many Israelis.
Nevertheless, he was misquoted and misrepresented. Also, he can not be compared to Ahmadinejad who was not only anti-Israeli, but also an anti-semite who denied the holocaust.

I will stand by this interpretation, which by the way, differs from the reference to the "sore" that others were apparently certain was the correct interpretation yesterday--based on mainstream media reports. 

This writer believes he understands the Iranian domestic political situation as well as anyone here, or at least well enough to have an intelligent discussion about Iran, domestically or otherwise.   And, respectfully, I have focused perhaps more than others on the remaining Jews from the ancient Persian Jewish community left in Iran.  That frames my perspective and I make no apologies for that.  As a result, for example, I am taken back by those who would parrot (perhaps unintentionally) ugly Iranian hasbara (as that term is so negatively used on the internet) to contend that things are secure for the remaining smatterings of an ancient Persian Jewish population.  This is not to assert any intention on my fellow bloggers to be inaccurate.  That's my gut, but also informed belief, and anyone who wants to assert otherwise should move away from resting on the bizarre eerie-like (to this Jews' ears anyway) recitation of statistics pertaining to the number of kosher butchers and Jewish schools there are left in Tehran-- -- a city with a population of approximately 100,000 Jewish people into the 1940s or 50s (I believe).   But, seriously, if it's an important issue for anyone I would be willing to discuss it.

Ultimately, what I believe would be worthwhile to discuss in a serious way just what it  that makes us believe that Rouhani will be: (a) more moderate than his predecessor (and what does that mean?); and (b) how it matters in any event in an Iran that is controlled by the Ayotollah Khameni.

I deleted the other stuff.  I honestly have some unreconciled beefs, but I'm not going to do it here.  Happy weekend.