The New York Times presents readers with criticisms of Israel and the U.S. by Iran's Supreme Leader as though they were merely "uncompromising" opinions by informing readers at the end of a recent article titled "As Iran Nuclear Talks Resume, Ayatollah Criticizes U.S.":

Turning to the United States’ support for Israel, which Iran regards as an illegitimate occupier of Palestinian lands, the ayatollah’s criticism was again uncompromising.

“The Zionist regime is doing evil, being backed by the U.S.A.,” he said. “In what situation are Palestine and Gaza? Do people of the world not know about people in Gaza? There are patients left in need of treatment, and medicine is not given to them because the U.S.A. is backing this occupier regime. Is not this oppression? Do not they feel shame to speak about human rights?”

Iran regards Israel "as an illegitimate occupier of Palestinian lands?

See, readers are just supposed to think that the the Ayatollah Khamenei's criticisms are merely anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric. Never mind the fact that all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jeruslaem, are under international law "occupied Palestinian territory". Never mind the fact that Israel's blockade of Gaza is an act of collective punishment of the civilian population in violation of international law. 

But it is not Iran's opinion that Israel illegitimately occupies Palestinian lands. It is a point of fact under international law that all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jeruslaem, are under international law "occupied Palestinian territory". And it is not Iran's opinion that Israel's blockade of Gaza is oppressive. It is a point of fact under international law that Israel's blockade of Gaza is an illegal act of collective punishment of the civilian population.

So why doesn't the Times just say so? Just what is it that makes these statements from Iran's Supreme Leader "uncompromising"? Which of the points made here, exactly, should Iran be expected to compromise on?