Anyone. If Israel's policy is genocide, either stated or in practice, it deserves severe condemnation (especially from anyone who provides aid to Israel--not a blanket condemnation of Israel, but a condemnation of that particular policy) to encourage them to shift towards a less inhumane stance from which negotiation and/or peace is possible.

If Hamas' policy is genocide, either stated or in practice, it too deserves severe condemnation (especially from anyone who provides aid that might reach Hamas). If Hamas cannot be reached, but non-Hamas Palestinians can, then we could instead severely condemn Hamas, indicating that we don't expect Israel to try to reconcile with them but rather with non-Hamas Palestinians, and that we expect non-Hamas Palestinians may be able to engage with Israel should it be ready to do so (which Netanyahu hasn't been).

No land has been stolen by Palestinians, but wars intended to steal potentially all land from Israel have been launched and/or joined by Palestinians. It wasn't that they didn't try. They just lost. Their inability does not excuse ill intent, and it is intent that matters most (hard to assess, admittedly) when considering a change in conditions that may substantially alter one's ability.

Condemning war crimes, and bringing the most brutal to justice, is often a part of reconciliation. It works better when those condemned are also ready to ask for forgiveness, and where forgiveness is ready to be given (perhaps in exchange for penance): https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/why-rwanda-is-held-up-as-a-model-for-reconciliation-26-years-after-genocide-1.5842139