'"The Jewish Brigade [in the film] is very accurate,” [Yoav Paz] says. “These soldiers from Israel, who were strong, fearless – nothing like the Jews that survived the Holocaust physically and mentally. They came to Europe in the last days of the war so they didn't have any real fighting. So a small, secret group – I think it was 200 or maybe a bit more – took on these operations.'
Right, those brave Israeli soldiers coming to the aid of holocaust survivors who apparently survived the camps without any mental or physical strength & fearlessness, got it. Reminds me of Ben Gurion's attitude to Holocaust survivors:
'In the struggle for Palestine, no matter was too small to receive Ben-Gurion’s attention. Yet his response to the greatest threat to Jewish survival was strangely disengaged. ‘The catastrophe of European Jewry is not directly my responsibility,’ he said when asked about the work of the Jewish Agency’s Rescue Committee, established in 1942. Segev reveals that Ben-Gurion had learned about the extermination of Polish Jews a year earlier, from a Palestinian Christian businessman in the US; he also met a woman from Poland who told him a ‘story of horrors and torments that no Dante or Poe could possibly imagine’. But his mission was to save ‘the Hebrew nation in its land’ rather than to save Jews from destruction. As he told members of Mapai in 1938, ‘if I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second.’
He never faced that choice. While he would often claim that the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust would be in Palestine if the state had already existed, the Yishuv wouldn’t have had the capacity to absorb them. (About sixty thousand Jews arrived during the war.) Segev suggests that Ben-Gurion’s coolness in the face of the catastrophe ‘was more than anything else helplessness’. But this doesn’t explain why Ben-Gurion dismissed out of hand the idea of bombing Auschwitz and the railroads leading from Hungary to Poland, or his judgment that ‘the terrible historical significance of the Nazi slaughter’ lay not in the ‘frightening number of Jews who were massacred’, but in the fact that it eliminated ‘that select part of the nation that alone, among all the Jews, was capable and equipped with all the characteristics and abilities needed for the building of a state’. That Jewish existence in much of Europe had been annihilated didn’t seem to move him; he saw Zionism, and his state, as the principal victim of the Nazis’ crimes against humanity. When he visited the displaced persons camps after the war, Ben-Gurion carried himself like ‘a commander surveying his troops’. Some of the survivors gave him a hero’s welcome, but others were frustrated that he ‘did not know how to offer paternal sympathy for their personal suffering; he could only see the Holocaust as a national catastrophe.’ He chided a resistance hero for giving a speech in Yiddish – a ‘jarring, foreign language’.
The Holocaust, the DP camps, the Yiddish of his youth: all were reminders of the diaspora life he had escaped, and of the ‘sin of weakness’, at precisely the moment that he was steeling himself for battle.' - https://portside.org/2019-10-24/we-are-conquerors-biographing-ben-gurion
Also this from Tony Greenstein:
'Hayyim Nahman Bialik, the national Zionist poet, spoke of the ‘disgraceful shame and cowardice’ of the Jewish victims of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom. Yitzhak Greenbaum, of the Jewish Agency Executive Committee, spoke of ‘unparalleled feelings of burning shame.’ ‘Sheep to the slaughter’ in the words of Eichmann’s prosecutor Gideon Hausner.
The first Holocaust survivors to arrive in Palestine were called sapon (soap) after the myth that the bodies of victims were made into soap.
Hanzi Brand wrote of how, when she settled on Kibbutz Gvata Haim, the other members ‘talked about their war to avoid hearing about hers. They were ashamed of the Holocaust.’ [Tom Segev, The 7th Million, p. 471]
Peter Novick spoke of the prevailing view in the Yishuv that holocaust survivors represented the ‘survival of the worst.’ In Ben Gurion’s view they were
‘hard, evil and selfish people and their experiences destroyed what good qualities they had left.’
Ben Gurion went on to add that they were
‘A mob and human dust, without language, without education, without roots and without being absorbed in tradition and the nation’s vision.’
David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister had already demonstrated during the war his indifference to the genocide of Europe’s Jews. His only concern was that the extermination of Europe’s Jews would render the establishment of a Jewish state irrelevant and reduc the number of immigrants to Israel.
Ben Gurion’s official biographer, Shabtai Teveth quoted Ben Gurion as saying that
‘where there was a conflict of interest between saving individual Jews and the good of the Zionist enterprise, we shall say that the enterprise comes first.’ (The Burning Ground, p. 855)' - https://tonygreenstein.com/2020/06/why-is-the-nazi-holocaust-more-important-than-the-slave-trade-and-the-death-of-10-million-africans-in-the-belgian-congo/
This surprisingly critical graun review of the film describes a scene where the protagonist is shamed by a Jewish Brigade soldier into returning to Germany to fight and thus reclaim some presumed dignity, fitting with the above disgust for simple victimhood:
'Max eventually reaches a camp where survivors are being processed for passage to Palestine. He meets a group of young officers from the Jewish Brigade. Here the script touches on the painful experience of Holocaust survivors in the early years after the war, criticised for failing to resist. A Jewish solider asks Max why he didn’t fight back. There were thousands of you in the camp, he says. The officer in charge persuades Max to infiltrate Nakam, a Jewish group suspected of planning something big in Nuremberg – an attack that could jeopardise a future Jewish state. Inevitably, Max becomes torn between two ideas of what revenge for the Holocaust could look like: a new life in Palestine versus Nakam’s retribution.' - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/aug/31/plan-a-review-holocaust-survivors-revenge-plot-doron-yoav-paz
Eventually it all comes back to being about Israel:
'“I think [Plan A] was horrible,” [Paz] says. “I think it was a terrible thing. The UN made Israel a country because of what people had been through, because of the Holocaust, because they understood that we need a safe place for our own. I think if even hundreds or thousands of innocent German kids and families were lost because of this operation, it could have jeopardised everything. I think it would have poisoned the foundations of this state.” '
Nothing else comes to mind for why the state's foundations might be 'poisoned', eh? He then has the nerve to suggest modern Palestinians might have a lesson to learn from this:
'“What we try to throw to the audience is,‘If you were in these people's shoes, if you lost everything, what power would control you?’” says Paz. “Would it be the power to start over, to go on with your life, or the power that will sink you? Revenge is a vicious thing and it still drives the world around us.
“Even in today's modern Israel, these vicious circles between Israel and the Palestinians, where each side cannot move on because the other side did this or that. You can find it in all conflict areas, that people unfortunately cannot forget the past and cannot move on because revenge is such a primal thing.” '
Revenge or justice? Pretty difficult to 'move on' and 'go on with your life' when in a refugee camp or open air prison while others now occupy your former homes & land, isn't it, but of course this numpty knows nothing about that. He's a beneficiary of that theft and thus has all the usual targeted ignorance & denial firmly in place. You can't 'both sides' it, buddy!