Can we agree that not all Holocaust stories are therefore good?

Shall we all agree that the Holocaust was bad? Shall we also agree that not every story about the Holocaust is therefore good? There have been hundreds, probably thousands of Holocaust novels and stories (and memoirs), some of which are the richest, most powerful, most disturbing documents in modern literature. And there will no doubt always be new ways for writers, even 2 generations removed, to try to confront this horrifying event and to make sense of it through art. But what are we to make of Nathan Englander's story in the current New Yorker, Free Fruit for War-Widows? Good idea, to see the Holocaust through the lens of an Israeli soldier, and the moral issues he confronts as he now finds himself in the role of killer, even executor. Too bad Englander so weirdly mishandles this material. In essence, he story begins with an episode in which an Israeli soldier (in the 50s?) shoots dead 4 Egyptian soldiers (it's not clear if these men represented a threat or not) and then beats the crap out of a fellow Israeli who questioned him on this. Jump to the present, at which the soldier beaten up reveres the attacker and tells his son a long and improbable story about how the attacker survived the camps, came home, found a German family well established in his family farm, learns they want to kill him, so he shoots them in their beds, and leaves for Israel. Huh? I'm sure we're not to see this as morally uplifting or as an excuse for a later maniacal behavior - or are we? Is this merely meant to be provocative, to pose the question about justified killings? What on earth is justified about any of these killings? We never in the least understand why the guy beaten up, now a sage old fruit vendor, would revere the sadistic soldier. I don't know - this story dresses in the trappings of serious literature, but it's all a get-up.