In fact Hilary didn't bomb, in fact his speech has been well received as an outstanding example of parliamentary oratory, indeed the Telegraph, house journal of the Tory Party, described it as 'prime ministerial'.
In the first part of the speech Benn defended Jeremy Corbyn seeking an apology from the Prime Minister for his reference to 'terrorist sympathisers' in conclusion he described the Labour movement's historically deep seated opposition to fascism and likened Daesh to fascists opposed to western values, western democracy, to tolerance and decency.
The middle section of his speech iterated the arguments for extending air strikes to Syria, of course Benn supported the invasion of Iraq and the the commitment to regime change which rather than introducing western values and democracy created a tragedy which is still unfolding in that troubled country and region.
As we prepare to extend our air strikes with the associated risk of civilian casualties British Newspapers are reporting that Daesh is regrouping in Libya' another casualty of a western bombing campaign to oust a despotic leader, where the task of rebuilding civil society was left to chance and has resulted in a deeply divided and conflicted country.
The Sykes-Picot agreement effectively divided the middle east between France, Britain and Russia in the aftermath of the first world war and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Not surprisingly it is these self same nations who are being drawn into a deepening regional conflict. Emphasised in Benn's speech by his reference to the fact that the border between Syria and Iraq, itself a legacy of Sykes-Picot, has to all intents and purposes been swept away as Daesh has sought to establish it's Caliphate.
What was missing from the speech however, indeed what was missing from the debate as a whole, was any understanding of the theological motivation underlying the growth of Daesh.
The post invasion period in Iraq led to an increase in the violence between Sunni and Shia within Islam so much so that American Intelligence described the conflict as a 'Civil War', although as we have seen again and again this war is far from civil.
The split between Shia and Sunni within Islam is essentially a split over inheritance.
And like any family quarrel it is capable of engendering extremes of violence and lasting for lifetimes. This particular quarrel goes back to the days after the death of the Prophet.
The Shia belief is that the Prophet Muhammad divinely chose and 'ordained' his cousin and son in law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, in accordance with the command of God to be the next Caliph in succession to himself.
For Sunni's Muhammad's rightful successor was Abu Bakr the father of Muhammad's wife Aisha and who was chosen by the Muslim community by consensus, a method that Sunni's believe is endorsed by the Quran.
The dispute over who was and is the true successor, Caliph or Imam, was first fought over in Basra, in modern Iraq, in the 7th Century, the battle continues.
For the Shia Muslim their faith is set out in a series of beliefs: That God is one and unique, that justice must be ethical, fair and equal, that God guides humankind through his prophets, that leadership rests with divinely appointed Imams and that there will be a time of final judgement.
For the Sunni Muslim again God is one and unique, and that His purposes are revealed through his angels, through the authority of scripture, primarily the final revelation, the Quran but also the scrolls, the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Prophets. Sunni also believe in a day of judgement alongside a belief in predestination as the supremacy of God's will.
What can, I think, be seen in all this is what Hilary Been described as a 'very, very complex conflict' sadly it is not equally at its heart that 'simple'.
There is almost a hint, which Benn might have been tempted to refer to, in the Labour Parties frustration with 'theology'. As when Harold Wilson dismissed the dispute over Clause 4 as 'mere theology' or as Alan Watkin's, writing in the Spectator, described 'the Labour Party as rich in procedural theology' causing David Stevenson to write proposing a 'rescue operation for the word.
I realise that as I write I am getting rather too close to the moment in the Da Vinci Code when Robert Langdon exclaims 'I need to get to a library fast', but if we are to begin to address the deep conflict within Islam and the even deeper conflict between Islam and the west what is needed is an attempt to lay the foundations for what has been called an 'Abrahamic Ecumenism'.
This is not just a family quarrel internal to Islam it is also a family quarrel between all the people's of the book and all the bombing in the world will not heal it or help it to be resolved.
In the first part of the speech Benn defended Jeremy Corbyn seeking an apology from the Prime Minister for his reference to 'terrorist sympathisers' in conclusion he described the Labour movement's historically deep seated opposition to fascism and likened Daesh to fascists opposed to western values, western democracy, to tolerance and decency.
The middle section of his speech iterated the arguments for extending air strikes to Syria, of course Benn supported the invasion of Iraq and the the commitment to regime change which rather than introducing western values and democracy created a tragedy which is still unfolding in that troubled country and region.
As we prepare to extend our air strikes with the associated risk of civilian casualties British Newspapers are reporting that Daesh is regrouping in Libya' another casualty of a western bombing campaign to oust a despotic leader, where the task of rebuilding civil society was left to chance and has resulted in a deeply divided and conflicted country.
The Sykes-Picot agreement effectively divided the middle east between France, Britain and Russia in the aftermath of the first world war and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Not surprisingly it is these self same nations who are being drawn into a deepening regional conflict. Emphasised in Benn's speech by his reference to the fact that the border between Syria and Iraq, itself a legacy of Sykes-Picot, has to all intents and purposes been swept away as Daesh has sought to establish it's Caliphate.
What was missing from the speech however, indeed what was missing from the debate as a whole, was any understanding of the theological motivation underlying the growth of Daesh.
The post invasion period in Iraq led to an increase in the violence between Sunni and Shia within Islam so much so that American Intelligence described the conflict as a 'Civil War', although as we have seen again and again this war is far from civil.
The split between Shia and Sunni within Islam is essentially a split over inheritance.
And like any family quarrel it is capable of engendering extremes of violence and lasting for lifetimes. This particular quarrel goes back to the days after the death of the Prophet.
The Shia belief is that the Prophet Muhammad divinely chose and 'ordained' his cousin and son in law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, in accordance with the command of God to be the next Caliph in succession to himself.
For Sunni's Muhammad's rightful successor was Abu Bakr the father of Muhammad's wife Aisha and who was chosen by the Muslim community by consensus, a method that Sunni's believe is endorsed by the Quran.
The dispute over who was and is the true successor, Caliph or Imam, was first fought over in Basra, in modern Iraq, in the 7th Century, the battle continues.
For the Shia Muslim their faith is set out in a series of beliefs: That God is one and unique, that justice must be ethical, fair and equal, that God guides humankind through his prophets, that leadership rests with divinely appointed Imams and that there will be a time of final judgement.
For the Sunni Muslim again God is one and unique, and that His purposes are revealed through his angels, through the authority of scripture, primarily the final revelation, the Quran but also the scrolls, the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Prophets. Sunni also believe in a day of judgement alongside a belief in predestination as the supremacy of God's will.
What can, I think, be seen in all this is what Hilary Been described as a 'very, very complex conflict' sadly it is not equally at its heart that 'simple'.
There is almost a hint, which Benn might have been tempted to refer to, in the Labour Parties frustration with 'theology'. As when Harold Wilson dismissed the dispute over Clause 4 as 'mere theology' or as Alan Watkin's, writing in the Spectator, described 'the Labour Party as rich in procedural theology' causing David Stevenson to write proposing a 'rescue operation for the word.
I realise that as I write I am getting rather too close to the moment in the Da Vinci Code when Robert Langdon exclaims 'I need to get to a library fast', but if we are to begin to address the deep conflict within Islam and the even deeper conflict between Islam and the west what is needed is an attempt to lay the foundations for what has been called an 'Abrahamic Ecumenism'.
This is not just a family quarrel internal to Islam it is also a family quarrel between all the people's of the book and all the bombing in the world will not heal it or help it to be resolved.
