If you offered arguments, you didn't offer evidence — ssu

.

Which is evidently false. For example, in my previous post I claimed “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” (notice that is a generic generalization, not a universal generalization). And reported the evidence supporting it:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806498

You may not like it, but it’s false to claim that I offered none. Besides, if you do not find them convincing, explain why and then provide more convincing evidences to support your claim than the ones I provided to support mine.

And your argument is like saying that all Americans support the Democrats, because they are in power. And Hamas hold little if anything now, with the West Bank being in control of the Fatah. Which makes your arguments simply poor. — ssu

But that’s not “my arguments” at all. You should counterargue the arguments I actually made not the ones you wish to compare them to, because they are more easy to contradict.
Concerning the comparison, first, I didn’t write anywhere “all Palestinians support Hamas” (which would be like “all Americans support the Democrats”). My generic generalisation (“Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time”) is grounded on the evidences I provided (not only, though). I have no interest in overestimating the Palestinian support for Hamas (here is one Palestinian who is manifestly anti-Hamas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef).
Second, I repeatedly clarified what I mean by “pro-Hamas”. In short: they “do not need to explicitly justify Hamas’ response to Israel to be considered pro-Hamas, they can even condemn it (many actually do, when solicited), yet they will complain about Israel in relative terms as way worse than Hamas, and as the one who started all of it, no matter the Jewish history and Israeli security concerns.” If holding a certain narrative (like Israel started it as a colonialist state, and Israel did WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse than Hamas because actually genocidal and apartheid) is more instrumental to Hamas than to Israel, then it is enough for me to label it as pro-Hamas (as much as my views being more instrumental to Israel than to Hamas, can be labelled “pro-Israel”). One can get the pro-Palestinian sentiment also from social media: ”For instance, hashtags loaded with political implication, such as #freepalestine, have over 9,442,504 posts while #freepalestinefromhamas has over 41,424 posts”. (Source: https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/scrolling-social-media-sentiments-on-the-gaza-war/) which suggests that Hamas (and their methods) is not perceived as the main obstacle to free Palestine, which means that Israel security concerns are not addressed as Israel would need. Another interesting study of social media consistent with what just said is this: https://www.isjq.ir/article_89793_d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e.pdf
Palestinian activists mainly use social media either to stir solidarity to the Palestinian cause from the rest of the World, or to advocate for violent resistance: neither of which are ways to address Israel’s security concerns as Israel would need, right?
Third, if Hamas hold little if anything now, it is because Hamas was holding enough, if not too much before. And Netanyahu looks determined to eradicate Hamas’ organization and infrastructure from Gaza, until he is satisfied with it. But more to the point, what is the claim that “Hamas hold little if anything now” supposed to prove wrt the evidences I provided to support my claim that “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” or that pro-Palestinians are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel?