I have not changed my position, but nice rhetorical trick there. I deplore any action that perpetuates conflict, alienates one people from another and in fighting violence with violence only succeeds in breeding more violence.
The point about the US/UK was to draw a distinction between acting yourself and acting but trying to switch the blame onto someone else.
Israel can have any f***ed up policy it wants, it just can't expect the World to believe a word it says: too much water under too many bridges. You think the UK just plucked the name of Israel out of the air and said "Yeah, must've been them". Read the story, they had intelligence reports too.
You'll have to try much harder if you expect anyone to see a major difference between accidental and intentional killing. Can't you see that no one is interested in "unfortunate collateral damage" arguments when they keep happening, and people keep dying. Who is interested in intentions when outcomes are the same?