Why is it so hard to say that one entity is bad without litigating the badness of every other entity? The military wing of Hamas is bad. They shoot rockets at civilians, deliberately, presumably in a bid to draw Israel into unrestrained conflict. They are killing civilians in order to start a war. That's bad. They're bad. Bad is practically their charter.
Are there worse entities? Sure. Now back to the matter at hand.
I guess I don't see why saying they're bad matter in and of itself.
Of course they're bad.
So what? We give weapons and money to lots of bad governments. Should we do so with Hamas? Just saying "they're bad!" doesn't really answer any interesting policy questions.
But hey, if you think foreign policy is about feeling moral superiority by saying "they're bad!" over and over, please don't let me stop you.
Generally, no. I think we should tend to avoid giving money to organizations that fire missiles at civilians in order to purposefully start wars. I think that's a pretty easy line item for our foreign policy rulebook.
Are there worse entities? Sure. Now back to the matter at hand.