The article bemoans people needing to pick sides, but then makes a case for being anti-palestine because of the regime. Not wanting Palestinians to be treated the way they have, not wanting constant expansion of Israel at the cost of Palestinian land, lives and liberty, isn't the same as being pro-hamas.
I'm "for Palestine" in the sense that it should be recognised as a state, it should be seen as part of the region and given support and resources to make the lives of the people livable. I don't like the regime at all, but the treatment Palestine has received in the past 70 years makes it fertile ground for extremism to take over.
It's not really cognitively difficult to both want an end to violence and oppression of the state while also wanting freedom from persecution within it.
To me, the article says people see things as two aides, which is bad, but then seems to argue that people are picking the wrong side.