Once again, it cannot be "pro-Hamas" if he doesn't even acknowledge they exist. His comments are wholly non-rhetorical: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

You cannot quote a single part of the article you listed where he argues in-favor of Hamas, because he does not mention them at all. You are casting aspersions that do not exist, much in the way the White House has to resort to defaming former presidents instead of setting a morally-consistent example.

Expressing an opinion about the Hamas-led attack means expressing an opinion about Hamas, whether or not the speaker uses the word "Hamas".

That's as ridiculous as claiming that any opinion about Baruch Goldstein is an opinion about Israel by-extension, whether or not his nationality is mentioned.

You're making a bad-faith extrapolation that most people know is desperate. If it was applied universally, you'd be crying foul too.

Baruch Goldstein was not the leader of Israel. The attack Hamdi praised was planned by the leadership of Hamas.

We can set aside the Hamas connection if you like, but in any case he was glorifying an attack that included deliberate massacres of civilians.