I do understand the difficulty in the problem of evil and specifically of suffering that we cannot explain. It is especially difficult if we or someone we love is the one suffering. The issue I believe with this argument is that it focus's on and put's above everything else, only one or a few of the qualities of God.
It is setting up a false dichotomy. It wants to say that benevolence must do X to the exclusion of everything else. That benevolence would not allow suffering in any circumstance if it could be prevented. I don't believe this to be true, and don't believe that the definition of benevolence requires this. An honest judge may sentence someone, and cause suffering, but this does not mean that he is not benevolent or caring. However, caring for the person does not mean that the judge needs to exclude other responsibilities.
It is setting up a false dichotomy. It wants to say that benevolence must do X to the exclusion of everything else. That benevolence would not allow suffering in any circumstance if it could be prevented. I don't believe this to be true, and don't believe that the definition of benevolence requires this. An honest judge may sentence someone, and cause suffering, but this does not mean that he is not benevolent or caring. However, caring for the person does not mean that the judge needs to exclude other responsibilities.
