Let me turn the question around and ask you: who do you think benefited? Just what are you driving at?
From the very beginning I was driving at a very simple ascertainment: since Israel couldn't possibly benefit from a deliberate attack on her closest and most cherished ally, the incident was obviously a result of a tragic error, a screw-up, or of whatever else, but not of a hostile intention.
Anyway, this discussion strayed from it's real theme - Andrew Sullivan's article, became too long, boring, and very often non-sensical. Your efforts, I have to acknowledge, made very substantial contribution to this end.
Thus I proclaim you to be a disraptor, a very poor debater, a squawky wrangler... and just a profound bore. On this I put a thick full-stop to any further deliberations with you.
Get lost!