Yeah, this is not hard. We can condemn everyone in proportion to the suffering and brutality they commit. We might understand the situation, but unless you are saying that it is impossible for people in those situations to not be brutal to such an extent (and of course it is very very much not unavoidable in almost every case with the possible but unlikely exception of Nat Turner (I don't know enough details)--because the abolition movement doesn't seem to have hinged upon that event), then we condemn them. We can make some allowance for the standards of the day, but that's about it.
Why is this hard?
So, Hamas was particularly horrid, not quite reaching the levels of the Comanche, so our condemnation should be swift and strong.
The Comanche committed unjustifiable barbaric atrocities. They were outliers of brutality even among the relatively brutal customs of the region. The horrors Dessalines inflicted were just that: horrors. Hamas committed acts of brutal terrorism. We can condemn them for what they did but did not have to do.
Why is this hard?
If we can understand the social pressures that leads to some people becoming murderous sociopaths, willing to murder children, and spend the lives of their own people to try to win a Pyrrhic moral victory out of a episode of wanton cruelty, it does not let the murderous sociopaths off the hook. To say so is the most grotesque insult to all the people who have suffered similarly and yet not turned into monsters.
Why is this hard?
I want you to condemn Hamas because what Hamas did is atrociously wrong. I want you to do it unadulterated, at some point, naming Hamas by name.
Not "well, rape is always wrong, but...". Just flat-out condemn it, calling out Hamas by name.
It's not hard. Look:
I condemn Hamas' barbaric actions on October 7, wherein it slaughtered and tortured hundreds of civilians, including children.
I condemn Hamas' intentional intermixing of its offensive capabilities with civilian areas in Gaza, ensuring that either they kill Israelis or Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Hamas, and Hamas alone, has made this into a situation where many civilians must die now.
Now, it's true that Hamas is not the only one deserving of condemnation.
I also want you to condemn Israel's anti-humanitarian response. Although some action seems necessary to call Hamas' bluff, they are doing so in such a callously wanton way that Netanyahu can't even pretend they're not killing massive numbers of Palestinians.
And I also want you to condemn Israel's continued provocation of Palestinians, for example, including repeatedly expanding settlements in the West Bank and not Gaza, which sends the message: well, we're going to take your land little by little unless you submit to rule by murderous psychopaths who scare us even though we're a hundred times more powerful.
And I also want you to condemn Zionist expansionism with little regard for existing people, and I also want you to condemn Palestinian/Islamic xenophobia and superiority that provided no peaceful, legal way for Jews to colonize what is today Israel.
"There are no innocents in war" is, however, such a simpleminded approximation as to be entirely useless. Everyone is a sinner. Okay, so, what, we don't have prisons? Of course not! Some sins are much worse than others. To fail to recognize this is a sin. One of the bad ones, though not the very worst.