Genuine question: when Hamas say they want to wipe 'Israel' off the map - and Israel's actions might well suggest that they want to do the same with Palestine/Gaza - have they actually confirmed that they want all of the people who live there to be wiped out as well? Or is it their way of stating that they utterly reject the legitimacy/safety of the current nation/regime being in charge of it?
Subsequently, when recent polls (assuming they are unbiased) find half or more of Gazans - presumably just the adults; in fact, do we know if they equally poll the women, and are they socially 'allowed' to express their own opinions? - 'support' Hamas... even if we accept that Hamas is a full-blown terrorist organisation, does that mean that half of ordinary Gazans support the terroristic activities of Hamas, or does it mean that they believe only Hamas can bring them the human freedoms of not effectively living refugees in their own land - as a great many Gazans (and their international supporters/advocates) view it - however distressing or necessary the methods that they employ to achieve this?
I know it's not the same thing in a number of factors, but I'm looking at parallels with Northern Ireland - and before that, what is now the Republic of Ireland, but was part of what is now the United Kingdom a century ago.
As far as I'm aware, nobody in authority on the island of Ireland has ever sought to 'wipe England/Scotland/Wales off the map' - but they did/many in NI still do (not at all unjustly imho) categorically reject the right/legitimacy of a London-led power to have rule/authority in Ireland - especially when that rule led to things such as the Potato 'Famine' (using inverted commas, as the word traditionally refers to naturally-occurring disasters) and decisions made very much with the interests of the inhabitants of Great Britain at the forefront and thus the interests of the inhabitants of (the island of) Ireland overlooked/ignored (at best) and subjugated/crushed (at worst).
As the well-known saying goes, about one person's terrorist being another person's freedom-fighter (see also South Africa and Nelson Mandela), many people in NI did support the IRA's AIMS, even if they didn't want them to be achieved through deaths of innocent people; but if you feel subjugated to the extent that you see no other option, it does rather muddy the moral waters and make it far more complex than simply 'these are unquestionably terrorists, and therefore the unequivocal evil people - which makes everybody who opposes them automatically the good people'.
Back to the Potato 'Famine', it was deliberately engineered in the undeniable knowledge that it would lead to the deaths of a huge number of innocent people. Maybe those with the wealth, power and widely-imputed legitimacy can make just as calculated evil decisions as the other side, but because they don't necessarily go in with guns and bombs and use much more subtle means to achieve the same or similar results, they are ubiquitously considered the 'good guys'.
Winston Churchill held views and made (arguably difficult and/or necessary) far-reaching, deadly decisions (and I'm not even referring to those involving Germany or other Europeans) that many would see as betraying a cold, ruthless and deeply misanthropic (as long as those people were not British) mindset not a million miles away from that of those multi-laterally considered to be 'terrorists' - but people nowadays don't generally consider Churchill in any way to have been a terrorist; indeed, just two decades ago, he was voted as 'The Greatest Briton' of all-time.
Much more recently, into the 21st century, we have the situation whereby Bush Jr, fully supported by Blair, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan - justified on the back of the (officially-confirmed) actions of a group of Saudi nationals and what has since been officially admitted to have been a deliberately politically falsified dossier of 'facts' (i.e. fictions). As a direct result of these lies, a great many British (and international) people consider Blair to be a war criminal and deserving of imprisonment; although this view is categorically not shared by the UK or US establishments, which have showered honours on him in their recognition of his achievements.
(Much) TL;DR: Although maybe seen as a 'cliché', the observation of the same person/group/government being controversially perceived as either a terrorist/evil or as a freedom-fighter/on the right side of history is as true as ever it was; and the subsequent categorisation of ordinary people as either 'supporting terror' or 'supporting peace and/or justice' is an extremely complex and nuanced - and thus potentially very misleading - assertion to make.
Sorry, the TL;DR wasn't especially short either.