Uncategorized
Sandy Fox, 36, Jewish camp expert
Like many academics, Sandy Fox, 34, wears many hats. She teaches history as a visiting assistant professor at NYU; she’s the director of the just-launched Archive of the American Jewish Left in the Digital Age; and she just published a book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America,” which is a history of Jewish summer camping that includes all the juicy (and, in some cases controversial) issues people think about when they think about Jewish camp. The Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, resident is also the founder, host and producer of “Vaybertaytsh: A Feminist Podcast in Yiddish.”
For the full list of this year’s 36 to Watch — which honors leaders, entrepreneurs and changemakers who are making a difference in New York’s Jewish community — click here.
How did you establish your career?
My path in work and life has been wind-y. When I was in my 20s, I thought I had to keep my public-facing Jewish cultural work, like “Vaybertaytsh,” separate from my academic research — that pressure exists in academia sometimes, especially when you’re a graduate student trying to prove yourself as “serious.” But I eventually learned to embrace these two sides of me — one that engages vocally and publicly in contemporary Jewish cultural and political issues, and the other that tries to investigate the past with critical distance. That eventually led me to writing “The Jews of Summer,” a book that is, as one of my colleagues blurbed it, “scholarly and entertaining.” I mean, why not be both?
How does your Jewish identity or experience influence your work?
When I entered college at The New School and started taking classes that touched on Israeli politics, I felt really blindsided by my heavily Zionist summer camp/youth group education. By the time I started my PhD program at age 23, I was on a journey when it came to my Jewish identity, trying to figure out how to replace Zionism — which had been the heart of my Jewish identity up until that point — with something else. I learned Yiddish and started “Vaybertaytsh” as part of my embrace of diaspora Jewish culture; I started attending alternative minyanim in Brooklyn that aligned with my feminism and overall politics much more than the synagogues of my childhood. My twenties, in other words, were marked by Jewish experimentation, and all the while I was writing this dissertation that was about how places like my summer camp, Young Judaea’s Camp Tel Yehudah, came to be the way they are.
Was there a formative Jewish experience that influenced your life path?
After college, I spent a year dabbling in a bunch of Jewish jobs while I applied to grad school. One of them was working for Jewish Funds for Social Justice, now Bend the Arc, leading service learning programs for college students, spring break trips to volunteer in places like New Orleans. The job was such an interesting and fun challenge, but the training, alongside about two dozen other trip leaders in their 20s, was what changed my life. That was my first exposure to a world of young, post-college adults doing Judaism in their own ways, and making their Jewishness reflective of their politics and values.
What is your favorite place to eat Jewish food in New York?
B+H Dairy
What is your favorite book about New York?
“Modern Lovers” by Emma Straub
How can people follow you online?
@sandy__fox on Twitter
Want to keep up with stories of other innovative Jewish New Yorkers? Click here to subscribe to the New York Jewish Week’s free email newsletter.
—
The post Sandy Fox, 36, Jewish camp expert appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
NYC Mayor Mamdani Unveils Major Tax Hike on Unoccupied Luxury Real Estate
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the New York City Office of Emergency Management, as a major winter storm spreads across a large swath of the United States, in Brooklyn, New York City, US, Jan. 25, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Bing Guan
i24 News – NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani has officially introduced a controversial new tax targeting secondary residences valued at over $5 million.
The measure, designed to tap into the city’s vast concentration of unoccupied luxury wealth, is projected to generate roughly $500 million annually for the municipal budget.
“This tax is specifically aimed at the ultra-rich,” Mamdani stated, highlighting high-profile examples such as Ken Griffin’s $238 million Midtown penthouse and Alexander Varshavsky’s $20.5 million Columbus Circle residence.
While the city has yet to finalize specific evaluation criteria or the methods for distinguishing primary from secondary homes, the proposal has already become a flashpoint for economic debate.
The move has drawn sharp condemnation from billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who argued that the policy is fundamentally flawed.
Ackman contended that owners of luxury secondary residences contribute significant capital to the local economy without utilizing costly municipal services. He warned that the tax would likely trigger a corporate and high-net-worth exodus to low-tax jurisdictions like Miami, ultimately harming the city’s tax base.
President Donald Trump also entered the fray, denouncing the policy as “totally misguided” and claiming it is “destroying New York.” Trump, whose own extensive real estate holdings in the city could be impacted, argued that such taxation serves only to drive away the international investors who fuel New York’s development.
Implementation remains a significant question mark, as the tax could potentially affect nearly 13,000 property owners, including major figures like Jeff Bezos. Financial analysts point out that many of the city’s most expensive apartments are held through complex offshore structures and shell companies, making the identification and appraisal of these properties an immense administrative challenge for the city.
As the debate intensifies, the Mamdani administration faces a difficult path ahead in balancing its “tax the rich” mandate with the practical realities of New York’s competitive global real estate market.
Uncategorized
Iran Rebuffs Trump Announcement of New Peace Talks, State News Agency Reports
Iran rejected new peace talks with the United States, its state news agency reported on Sunday, hours after US President Donald Trump said he was sending envoys for talks in Pakistan and would launch new strikes on Iran unless it accepts his terms.
Trump posted on Truth Social that his envoys would arrive in Pakistan on Monday evening for negotiations, a timetable that would leave only a day for talks to make progress before a two-week ceasefire ends.
“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” he wrote. “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”
Iran’s official IRNA news agency cited no specific source in its report that Iran had rejected the talks.
“Iran stated that its absence from the second round of talks stems from what it called Washington’s excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade, which it considers a breach of the ceasefire,” IRNA wrote.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Iran’s rejection of the talks.
Earlier, a White House official said the US delegation would be headed by Vice President JD Vance, who led the war’s first peace talks a week ago, and also include Trump’s envoy Steven Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Trump had initially told ABC News and MS Now that Vance would not go.
Uncategorized
Israel Confronted White House After Trump’s Harsh Posts Against Israel About Lebanon Strikes
US Vice President JD Vance is welcomed by Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee upon his arrival at Ben Gurion airport in Lod, Israel, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Nathan Howard/Pool via REUTERS
i24 News – Behind the scenes of a fragile regional peace, a series of blunt social media posts and urgent diplomatic calls have revealed deep tensions between the Trump administration and the Israeli government regarding the scope of the ceasefire in Lebanon.
The friction began hours after the cessation of hostilities was announced, when President Trump issued an unusually sharp directive on social media, catching Jerusalem by surprise. “Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!”
The post sparked uproar within the Prime Minister’s Office. According to sources directly to i24NEWS, the concern was twofold: the rhetoric appeared to undermine signed agreements regarding Israel’s “freedom of action” against Hezbollah, and the blunt, authoritative language was viewed as exceptionally harsh for a close ally.
Following a round of emergency consultations, the Prime Minister’s Office dispatched Israel’s Ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, to contact the White House. Leiter reportedly conveyed Israel’s deep dissatisfaction with the implied restrictions on its security operations and the public tone of the directive.
In the wake of the Israeli protest, US officials moved quickly to de-escalate. A spokesperson issued a clarification to reporters, framing the President’s stance within the technicalities of the agreement:
“The President’s ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel clearly states that Israel will not carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets but preserves its right to self-defense against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.”
By overnight, President Trump appeared to shift his tone significantly, praising Israel’s military prowess amidst the ongoing broader conflict with Iran. “Whether people like Israel or not, they have proven to be a GREAT Ally,” Trump wrote, describing the nation as “Courageous, Bold, Loyal, and Smart.”
Despite the digital firestorm, the tactical reality remains nuanced. Over the weekend, the IDF acted several times to neutralize Hezbollah threats before they could be executed against Israeli forces.
However, in a notable sign of restraint aimed at preserving the truce, Israel elected not to respond to the recent deaths of two of its troops in separate incidents. Israeli officials maintained that the explosive devices responsible for the casualties had been planted prior to the ceasefire taking effect, choosing to categorize the events as legacy threats rather than fresh violations.