Uncategorized
‘Swastika boards’ and ‘surf Nazis’: New documentary explores surfing’s history of antisemitism
(JTA) — When he was 13 years old, Josh Greene moved with his family to San Clemente, California, a city known as one of the best spots for surfing on the West Coast. Greene quickly fell in love with the sport, even holding his bar mitzvah party at a local museum dedicated to it.
As a “skinny, very unathletic” teen, Greene said he endured a significant amount of bullying, including some that “extended itself into antisemitism.” Students at his school would compare his physique to that of a Holocaust survivor.
Surfing provided refuge.
“Surfing was my way to really carve my own niche and find the confidence, courage and physical strength I needed,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
But years after his bar mitzvah, Greene learned that his parents had arranged for the Surfing Heritage and Culture Center to remove swastika-engraved boards that were on display, to avoid disturbing the partygoers. Wanting to learn more, he discovered that the sport’s history is full of Nazi imagery: Particularly in the 1960s, seeing surfboards with swastikas or surfers giving “Sieg heil” salutes was commonplace. Serious surfers called themselves “surf Nazis” as a way to signal their intense dedication to the sport.
An aspiring filmmaker — he received his first “real camera” as his bar mitzvah present — Greene decided to combine his two passions and delve into the dark history.
The result, completed before he graduated from the University of Southern California in May 2022, is a documentary called “Waves Apart,” which chronicles the history of antisemitism in surfing. Directed by Greene, the student-produced film was a finalist in the fall for a Student Academy Award, given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
“Waves Apart” made its global debut at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on Thursday, before heading to other Jewish and documentary film festivals in California, Denver, Toronto and Maryland.
After chronicling his own journey with surfing and the bar mitzvah incident in the film, Greene interviews surf writer Dan Duane and Jewish history professor Steven Ross, who provide a fuller picture of Southern California’s history of both surfing and Nazism, and their unfortunate overlap. As Duane wrote in a 2019 New York Times article, that overlap runs deep — The first commercially made surfboards made in California are thought to be the “Swastika model,” sold in the 1930s by the Pacific Systems Homes company, which also made prefab houses. The 1960s surfer icon Miki Dora was known to have painted a swastika on at least one of his boards.
Duane cites arguments that claim early surfers, who wanted to be seen as a rebellious subculture, used the swastika only to irk members of mainstream society. But Duane argues back that their antisemitism was part of a clear culture of racism in the largely white surfer community.
“I’ve heard all the predictable excuses for this stuff, like that the swastika was an ancient Sanskrit symbol,” he wrote in The Times. “Putting a swastika on something to anger people means you know that it angers them and very likely why.”
In his movie, Greene also speaks with Jewish surfers, both his classmates at USC and Jewish surfing legends like Shaun Tomson and Israel “Izzy” Paskowitz. Paskowitz shares a story of encountering a surfer with a swastika spray-painted on his surfboard — which his father, the famous surfer Dorian “Doc” Paskowitz, destroyed out of anger.
“Right as I was about to graduate, we had the first screening of our film, in our school’s theater,” Greene said. “We drew a packed crowd, and it was so rewarding and such a great sign of confirmation about the film’s message and connectivity with our audience. We saw people crying, people smiling at the end, with the way our film ends with a hopeful tone and message for the future.”
That hopeful message is where Tomson comes in. A former pro surfer and now a motivational speaker, Tomson reached the pinnacle of the sport by winning the 1977 World Surf League championship. He won 19 major professional surfing events in total and is a member of both the Southern California and International Jewish Sports Halls of Fame.
Shaun Tomson is a former world champion surfer. (Courtesy of Tomson)
Tomson, born in Durban, South Africa, also had a surfing experience tied to his bar mitzvah that would prove foundational. Tomson’s father took him on a surfing trip to Hawaii, which Tomson called “the Mount Everest of surfing.”
“For me, it was a total representation of what a bar mitzvah is — it’s coming into manhood,” Tomson told JTA. “And here I was, a young boy paddling out in a 25-foot surf in Hawaii, which was a moment for me that changed my life. I came back to South Africa, and my career and my role in surfing changed after that bar mitzvah present.”
Tomson said he has faced antisemitism before outside of the sport — he was called a “Jew boy” by a fellow member of South Africa’s army as a teenager — but never as a member of the surfing community in the 1970s onward.
“While it’s not an excuse, I think there’s just a lot of ignorance,” Tomson said. “When I say ignorance, perhaps it wasn’t actually directed at Jews, it was more just blatant stupidity, and a lack of awareness of what actually happened in the Holocaust.”
There weren’t many Jewish surfers in South Africa when Tomson grew up, but he said he feels a direct link between his identities as a Jew and as a surfer.
“When you’re out in the ocean, there’s certainly a spiritual and a religious connectivity there, which is totally aligned with Jewish values,” he said.
No experience exemplifies this connection more powerfully than the tragic death of Tomson’s son, Matthew, who died in 2006 at the age of 15 as a result of a schoolyard “choking game” gone wrong. Tomson tells the story in the documentary.
Tomson explained that his particular expertise is tube riding — the picturesque but challenging technique of riding inside a tunnel-like wave. Two hours before Tomson’s son died, he called his father to share an essay he had written about how in tube riding, “the light shines ahead.” Just hours later, Tomson received the devastating news.
“So when I was trying to make sense of the world and my life, and why God had done this to me, I went back to my old shul,” Tomson said. “The old shul where I’d had my bar mitzvah. And I look at that lamp of everlasting light that represents the hope and faith of Judaism. And I thought of the words that my son wrote, ‘the light shines ahead.’ And I realized that Judaism’s about hope.”
The film ends on that hopeful tone: The last scene features a group of Jewish surfers at a beach in Malibu, reciting the Shema prayer in the water, before hitting the waves as the sun begins to set. In the last shot, the group sits down to a Shabbat meal on the beach.
“Surfing can be seen as a microcosm for issues like that and I think we would be doing our sport a great disservice if we ignored our own signs of darkness,” Greene said. “I think that by making a film like this, we can dispel ignorance and divisiveness, and instead promote inclusivity, community and equality for all surfers and all people.”
—
The post ‘Swastika boards’ and ‘surf Nazis’: New documentary explores surfing’s history of antisemitism appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Art theft, angels and neo-Nazis force a reckoning with the past in ‘The Tavern at the End of History’
Tavern At The End of History
Morris Collins
Dzanc Books, 326pp, $27.95
In Morris Collins’ novel about two directionless adults on the hunt for a famous work of art presumed to have been stolen during the Holocaust, one character theorizes that “the only way towards a moral life” is to let go of the past. But Tavern At the End of History a follow up to Collins’ debut novel — the post-colonial thriller Horse Latitudes — is all about remembering, even that which is painful, and reckoning with it.
When readers are first introduced to Jacob, his inappropriate remarks to a student have cost him his professorship and his marriage, and he’s become an alcoholic. At a park in Brooklyn, he meets Baer, an impoverished Orthodox man living in a ramshackle apartment with only a fat orange cat to keep him company. As it turns out, they are both connected to the disgraced Kabbalah scholar Alex Baruch.
After meeting Baruch at a conference in Berlin, Jacob became a devoted follower. Even after Baruch was exposed for lying about being a German Holocaust survivor, Jacob remained loyal and has agreed to meet with Baruch at his sanitarium in Maine the same weekend Baruch plans to auction off a sketch by the deceased Jewish artist Alexander Lurio.
Baer reveals that the sketch had belonged to his family before the war, but, he says, it was confiscated by the Nazis. Jacob agrees go to Maine and look for the sketch with Baer’s cousin Rachel, an art historian still reeling from her husband’s suicide after she helped him leave the Orthodox community. But art isn’t the only interesting thing on Baruch’s private island. There are neo-Nazis, an erotic statue garden, otherworldly entities, and an eccentric group of Jews, although it’s unclear if they are fellow visitors of the sanitarium or patients.
Jacob, Rachel, and the other Jews at the sanitarium are incessantly haunted by the past — for Baruch, this becomes literal, when a friend he presumed had died in the Holocaust appears at his doorstep. The oddball group spends their five days in Maine, primarily telling stories about their trauma, all linked to the Holocaust either through their own experiences or those of their parents. It may be doubtful that there is any sense to be derived from tragedy, but they try their very best.
For Baruch, this means trying to justify lying about his past and doing unspeakable things to make his life easier. Jacob funnels his confusion into philosophical debates about how — or even if — the Holocaust and Israel should be understood in relation to one another. Rachel seems to believe misfortune can be rectified as she hunts for the stolen Lurio sketch.
The book often veers into unsettling territory, sometimes painting overwhelmingly disturbing scenes from the Holocaust, but Collins’ illustrative writing keeps the story engaging, even in its bleakest moments. His world-building is so convincing it’s almost incomprehensible that the Lurio works are fictionalized. Even the enigmatic Alex Baruch and the fake writings Collins “quotes” from feel real.
Because the book takes place in 2017, some of its musings on Israel and antisemitism feel less jarring than they could be. The characters watch the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally on the television, scenes that could now easily be substituted with more alarming images of government officials cozying up to neo-Nazis. The discussions about the Holocaust and Zionism feel less edgy than they may have almost a decade ago, as so much new scholarship questioning the role of memory and trauma in the creation of Israel has come out.
The book ends with some ambiguity about what exactly transpires on the island and how our characters will be able to move on. Still, Collins crafts a compelling art mystery, buttressed by a tale of a group of lost souls trying to find meaning in a world that sometimes feels hopeless.
The post Art theft, angels and neo-Nazis force a reckoning with the past in ‘The Tavern at the End of History’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one
When President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House today – their 6th meeting in the U.S. in the last year – their discussion will focus on a shared commitment to confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, but the stakes are different for each of them.
For Trump, a nuclear agreement could cement his legacy as a peacemaker, perhaps even earn him a long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize. For Netanyahu, a deal could bolster his political standing back home in a difficult election year.
In 2015, when President Obama was on the verge of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, Netanyahu cast himself as the indispensable interpreter of the Iranian threat to Washington, as he has again. But back then, Netanyahu came to publicly oppose what he called “a very bad” Iran deal, pushing back against the U.S. president. Now, he is visiting the White House with the hope of shaping U.S. policy on Iran, not challenging the president.
Trump has described the first round of discussions with Iran as “very good,” even as U.S. aircraft carriers and other military assets build up in the region. He has insisted that Tehran is “wanting to make a deal very badly.” Israel, for its part, has made clear that any agreement must go beyond limits on uranium enrichment and also address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its network of regional proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis – that have been attacking Israel.
Netanyahu has said he plans to present the president with Israel’s approach to the nuclear talks led by Trump’s close advisers, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff.
Netanyahu is betting that intimacy equals influence. That being the leader who shows up in person — again and again — ensures Israel is not outflanked as decisions are made. Last June, that strategy appeared to pay off. Netanyahu launched a charm offensive aimed at drawing Trump into a more active role in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. If talks fail, Trump could act again. “Either we will make a deal, or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” Trump told Axios.
But the frequency of these meetings also reflects some vulnerability. It showcases a prime minister who cannot afford distance and disagreement with the White House.
The domestic clock is ticking
The longest-serving Israeli leader is facing a real risk that Israel’s legislature, the Knesset, will dissolve in the coming weeks if his coalition fails to resolve the explosive issue of military conscription for Haredi yeshiva students. The Haredi parties have threatened to vote against the budget ahead of the March 31 deadline — a move that would trigger elections as early as June.
If Netanyahu emerges from the White House visit with rhetorical alignment or symbolic support, he could buy himself time and political oxygen.
These gestures matter for Israel, where the education minister, Yoav Kisch, has formally invited Trump to attend the Israel Prize ceremony on Independence Day in Jerusalem to receive the prestigious award for a “Unique Contribution to the Jewish People.” Israeli officials have also invited him to participate in the annual torch-lighting ceremony, one of the most emotionally charged moments on the Israeli civic calendar.
If Trump accepts the invitation and travels to Israel again, it would be a political gift of the highest order. For Netanyahu’s supporters, that imagery could energize turnout and blunt opposition momentum. For undecided voters, it reinforces a familiar argument: Whatever Netanyahu’s flaws at home, replacing him would risk destabilizing Israel’s most important relationship abroad and its closest ally in any confrontation with Iran.
But Trump’s current position on Iran may still cross Netanyahu’s red lines. And Trump has shown before that he is willing to act unilaterally, even without backing from allies.
Still, he is very popular in Israel, and that benefits Netanyahu. A new survey by the Jewish People Policy Institute showed that 73% of Israelis rate Trump as a better-than-average U.S. president for Israel’s interests and 54% of Jews in Israel view Trump as one of the best presidents in U.S. history.
The post Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House Wednesday in a highly anticipated discussion. The primary focus of the meeting is expected to be the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, particularly regarding Tehran’s treatment of protesters and the possibility of a renewed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
But it also comes amid intensifying debates over U.S. military assistance to Israel, eroding bipartisan support for that aid, and recent controversial Israeli moves in the West Bank, all of which could shape the conversation.
How US military aid to Israel works
U.S. military aid to Israel has long been governed by a 2016 memorandum of understanding under which Washington pledged $38 billion in assistance over a decade — $33 billion in military grants and $5 billion for joint missile defense programs. Israel receives roughly $3.8 billion annually, including approximately $500 million earmarked for missile defense. The agreement is scheduled to be renegotiated in 2028.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, Congress has authorized at least $16.3 billion in additional aid. The flow of funds is subject to congressional review and measures such as the Leahy Law, which bars assistance to foreign security forces implicated in gross human rights violations.
US aid to Israel no longer enjoys the bipartisan support it once did
Amid the Gaza war and the rise of a U.S. anti-war, pro-Palestinian movement, American public support for Israel has declined significantly across both major parties.
A 2025 Pew Research Center study found that only 24% of Americans under 30 view the Israeli government favorably, compared with roughly half of those over 60. Among Republicans, negative views of Israel increased from 27% in 2022 to 37%, while among Democrats the rise was steeper — from 53% to 69%. Nearly 4 in 10 adults under 30 believe the U.S. provides “too much” aid to Israel, compared with one-third of adults overall.
The debate over U.S. aid to Israel played a significant role in last week’s Democratic congressional primary in New Jersey. A super PAC associated with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent more than $2 million on negative ads that helped fuel the defeat of former Rep. Tom Malinowski, who describes himself as pro-Israel but who drew AIPAC’s fire because he is opposed to unconditional aid.
Why Netanyahu wants to reduce U.S. military aid
In recent weeks, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have publicly expressed a desire to reduce Israel’s dependence on U.S. military assistance. Netanyahu has said he hopes to “taper off” U.S. aid over the next decade and has indicated that he does not intend to seek a full renewal of the 2016 agreement.
This push is rooted in frustrations during the Gaza war, when several allies, including the Biden administration, temporarily halted or delayed certain arms transfers over concerns that specific munitions could be used in ways that might cause excessive harm to Palestinian civilians. Israeli officials argue that these restrictions constrained Israel’s ability to fight at critical moments.
Israeli leaders also see strategic and economic value in redirecting the billions of dollars currently spent on U.S. weapons toward Israel’s own defense industry. At the same time, declining support for U.S. aid to Israel among both “America First” Republicans and Democrats concerned about Gaza casualties has made the Israeli government increasingly wary of relying on Washington for its long-term defense needs.
On Jan. 28, Netanyahu claimed that what he called an arms “embargo” under former President Joe Biden cost Israeli soldiers their lives — a statement former U.S. officials quickly condemned.
“Netanyahu is both not telling the truth and ungrateful to a president that literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment,” said Amos Hochstein, a former U.S. diplomat under Biden. Brett McGurk, who served in senior national security roles under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump, as well as Biden, said the claim was “categorically false.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides added: “He is wrong. Biden’s support for Israel has been rock solid, and he provided it at enormous political cost.”
For its part, the Trump administration published its 2026 National Defense Strategy at the end of January, which states, “Israel is a model ally, and we have an opportunity now to further empower it to defend itself and promote our shared interests.”
The meeting’s focus: Iran
Discussions regarding Iran are expected to dominate the meeting. Iran and Israel have long been adversaries, with Tehran openly committed to Israel’s destruction. The meeting comes ahead of months of increased tension between the two nations. During the 12-Day War in June 2025, Israel struck key Iranian military assets, and the U.S., buoyed by prior Israeli military successes, attacked major Iranian nuclear facilities. The present condition of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs after the strikes is unclear, and Israel remains determined to eliminate the security threat posed by Iran.
Following the outbreak of anti-regime protests in Iran in mid-January, Trump encouraged demonstrators in a Jan. 13 Truth Social post, writing: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Shortly after the post, Netanyahu reportedly urged Trump not to strike Iran, citing fears of a major Iranian retaliation against Israel — an outcome Iranian officials have explicitly threatened. While Trump has repeatedly warned Iran of potential military action over Iran’s treatment of protesters, and moved a fleet of aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East, he has emphasized his preference for reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran, particularly focused on the country’s nuclear program.
The Trump administration met with Iranian officials in Oman over the weekend in the hopes that a deal might be struck. With talks expected to continue next week, Netanyahu is now seeking to broaden the scope of any potential agreement between the U.S. and Iran. According to a statement from his office, Netanyahu hopes the Trump administration will push for provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and Iran’s support for regional militant groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, as well as ensuring Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
On the sidelines, Israel makes controversial moves in the West Bank
Recent Israeli decisions regarding the West Bank may also surface during the meeting, following announcements on Sunday by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz of new measures expanding Israeli control over territory in the West Bank presently controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The steps will make it easier for Jewish Israelis to purchase land in the West Bank and could allow Israeli police to demolish homes in areas under PA jurisdiction — moves that would violate the Oslo Accords.
The recent Israeli decisions run counter to explicit Trump administration requests that Israel avoid controversial actions in the West Bank, particularly as Arab states have warned that steps toward annexation could jeopardize their willingness to help manage postwar Gaza or normalize relations with Israel.
Trump told Axios on Tuesday, “We have enough things to think about now. We don’t need to be dealing with the West Bank.” U.S. officials also reiterated Trump’s opposition to Israeli annexation of the territory, stating, “A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region.”
With a potential deal with Iran on the table, U.S. military aid to Israel under growing scrutiny, and Israeli actions in the West Bank complicating regional diplomacy, Wednesday’s meeting comes at a unique moment for the U.S.-Israel relationship. But as past meetings between Trump and Netanyahu have shown, there is a very real chance the meeting could veer off script.
The post 5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting appeared first on The Forward.