Hugh Naylor of the Washington Post: how he blatantly distorted the speech by Hasan Nasrallah

Hugh Naylor, says on Twitter (I am told) that he knows "decent Arabic" (decent Arabic is a level of competence in Arabic recognized by schools of foreign languages).  Here is his translation of Nasrallah's recent speech: "Nasrallah described Hezbollah’s role in the three-year-old Syrian civil war as “a great victory,”".  A headline on the first edition of the article claimed that Nasrallah even described the civil war as "great victory".  Here is my translation of the section of the speech:  "We are in the fourth year, and the Takfiris have not been able to control Syria, and a large section of its population stayed in their lands, in their villages, in their cities, and in their towns without submitting to this control.  Is this not a great victory and a great achievement"?  If this is Naylor's version of "decent Arabic", I strain to know what indecent Arabic would be like.  But here is what bothers me: if a Post correspondent dared to distort a speech by an Israeli leader (to make him look worse), he would be fired on the spot.  But when it comes to enemies of Israel, all professional bets are off in the US.