https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas-Charta

Paraphrasing: All Muslims and Arabs are called for the liberation of Palestine and the support of Hamas in the fight against the “Zionist Invasion”. A traditional Hadith is being referred to that calls for killing all Jews.

To even be citing this, you must know that it is out of date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter

I obviously object to antisemitism in the old charter, but that's a significant part of why the new charter was introduced.

The rhetoric of the old charter is also misleading, because Palestinian Jews have been existing openly in Palestine from the time of the Nakba to the present day. Hamas has not been perpetrating a Holocaust within Palestine, though clearly antisemitism in the population is a problem and the old charter is both an symptom and a cause of it, but Hamas has never actually been eradicatory.

Furthermore, even if they were, that still doesn't justify a genocidal settler-colony's existence! Opposing the slaughter of a people whose main military opposition to that slaughter -- which exists entirely to oppose that slaughter -- is antisemitic is not an endorsement of antisemitism! That's a completely unhinged position!

If Germany was so fucking devoted to Jewish people, it would take in the population that wishes to flee what was formerly Israel. Palestinians being allowed to live without colonization is not antisemitism. But Germany isn't devoted to Jewish people. Like Israel itself, it seeks to weaponize the memory of the Holocaust to provide cover for vicious imperialism.

Defecting when the own side is winning is suicide (after losing the battle with the other site your previous allies won’t be happy to see you). Defecting when the own side is losing has a high chance of getting you killed by the other side for revenge.

This is just nonsense, as evidenced by the high number of defectors. There are so many problems with this pat syllogism that it's hard to deconstruct, but let's start with that military fronts mostly don't exist in a state of being imminently about to shift to another location [i.e. "winning" or "losing" from whichever perspective]. They spend most of their time with at least a shaky level of stability. Then, once you get to the enemy encampment to surrender, you don't just sit on your hands until the front shifts, you'll be taken to an encampment away from the front in some kind of provisional detention and, depending on various circumstances, placed either in a POW camp or assigned a position in the enemy military. It's a completely viable strategy that can hardly be said to be more dangerous than fighting a war for years.

If someone was brought to Vietnam against his own will and only is fighting there to survive himself I really wouldn’t call him a criminal. More like a victim of the system, but there’s not much else he could do in that situation.

But people did do otherwise, and so many did that it was a substantial factor in the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging#U.S._Forces_in_Vietnam

And by that logic every soldier in every war unless they’re defending their own country is a criminal,

You've almost got it. You can also defend other countries, there's no nationalist slant to what I'm saying. With that provision, yes, many, many soldiers are accomplices to terrible crime, though few fit this description as gravely as the Wehrmacht.

including the Allies when they invaded Germany at the end of WW2 which obviously isn’t the case.

The counter-invasion of Germany was defensive, especially for the Soviets, who faced extermination at the hands of the Nazis, so that's a bunk example. It's like calling tackling a shooter an act of aggression. No, they have demonstrated that they want to use their military force to destroy you, so it is necessary to your existence that you destroy their military force.