All this stuff about terrorism is a lot more complicated than most people realize. We'll start with the IRA since that's what you mentioned.

So a previous post here today talked about Corbyn supporting the IRA saying he wanted to hand over British land when the inhabitants opposed this. The reason that many in Northern Ireland opposed a united Ireland was because the UK, like all colonialist powers, shipped a massive number of its home citizens to colonized territory to achieve various goals. The Ottoman Empire did the same thing after the conquest of Greece and the the Balkans. Would you call Skanderberg a terrorist for the liberation of Albania? It seems a little silly.

As far as his other "terrorist" sympathies and addressing previous posts in your history on the subject the case for Israel and Palestine is similarly as complicated as that of the IRA. The Rashidun Caliphate annexed Syria from the Byzantines. It remained under Muslim control through the Umayyad Caliphate, Abbasid Caliphate, and the Fatimid Caliphate. Saladin's Ayyubid dynasty then ruled it until the Mameluke Sultanate overthrew them around the 1250s. The Mongols were sacking the whole region around this time as well. The Ottoman Empire conquered the Mameluke Empire in 1517. They lost Syria to Britain's Mandatory Palestine in 1920. So from 632 to 1920 Israel was under an almost identical relationship with various Islamic nations compared to Northern Ireland and Britain. Prior to the creation of Israel from the conquest of land which had never belonged to any European state involved in the war Palestine had far more Muslims than Jews. Indeed England under Blair did far more damage to Muslim nations than Hamas has ever done to Israel.

Its quite hypocritical to go after Corbyn for supporting the goals, but not the means, of the IRA while also going after him for his opinions related to Israel. Your essentially defining terrorist as "political group comprised of people I disagree with." You said New Labour was probably the best thing that could have happened to Labour. So you can support Tony Blair and his shady dealings with George W. Bush to invade multiple Middle Eastern countries but Corbyn's support of goals, but again not necessarily means, of various separatist/nationalist groups is a problem? I suppose you would also consider Americans to be terrorists? They did what the IRA tried to do but successfully and far enough in the distant past for it to be water under the bridge for most people. Its not as if there were no Royalist forced on the King's side during the Revolutionary War.

I mean, if you don't consider that stuff important its fine, but you can't laud Blair and condemn Corbyn and maintain logical consistency. The IRA and its supporters had legitimate grievances about their treatment by England both during the initial Anglo-Norman conquest and the Tudor reconquest. If the conquest of Ireland in the 1200s-1600s gives England legitimate claim than surely the conquest of Israel and the uninterrupted, unlike English control of Irish territory, control of it by successive Muslim states gives them a legitimate claim to Israel.