RSS
In an Era of Con Artists, the Torah Instructs Us to Hold Onto Our Integrity
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
The year was 1820, and London’s high society was abuzz with the arrival of a dashing new personality.
General Gregor MacGregor, a Scottish war hero with a chest full of medals and a gifted raconteur, had swept into the city and taken it by storm.
Clad in a sharp military uniform and flashing a charming grin, MacGregor regaled audiences with stories of his daring exploits alongside Simón Bolívar during the Venezuelan War of Independence. But what truly captivated the elites wasn’t his charisma or battlefield glory, it was his claim to be the ruler — “cazique” — of a tropical Central American paradise called Poyais.
Poyais, MacGregor declared, was a land of unparalleled riches. Its soil was so fertile that the finest crops grew with barely any effort, its rivers sparkled with gold, and its friendly native tribes were eager to welcome British settlers. It was an investor’s dream and a settler’s utopia. And MacGregor, the benevolent ruler, was more than willing to share his paradise — for a price, of course.
London’s elites fell over themselves to get in on the opportunity. They bought Poyaisian land grants, invested in its government bonds, and dreamed of lounging on their sprawling estates in this New World Garden of Eden. Ships were chartered, and hundreds of eager pioneers boarded them, ready to embark on the adventure of a lifetime.
The problem? Poyais didn’t exist. It was nothing more than a figment of MacGregor’s fertile imagination. The settlers who arrived at the site where Poyais was supposedly located found only a mosquito-infested untamed jungle on the Honduran coast. There was no infrastructure, no resources, and no welcoming natives. Many succumbed to disease and starvation, and the few survivors returned to Britain with harrowing tales of betrayal and disaster.
And MacGregor? He simply shrugged, pocketed the fortune he’d amassed, and moved on to his next scheme. Astonishingly, despite orchestrating one of the most audacious frauds in history, he never faced justice. Instead, he retired to Venezuela, where his earlier association with Bolívar earned him accolades as a war hero. He lived out his days in comfort, unpunished and unrepentant.
It’s hard to imagine anyone matching MacGregor’s sheer chutzpah, but remarkably, he was far from the only 19th-century con artist to leave a trail of devastation in their wake. Fast forward to the late 1870s, and another fraudster — a woman this time — was weaving her web of deceit.
Sarah Howe was the very picture of respectability: impeccably dressed, articulate, and gifted with a knack for making lonely, vulnerable women feel seen and valued. She seemed the perfect person to lead the Ladies’ Deposit Company, a savings bank in Boston catering exclusively to unmarried women.
Howe’s pitch was as appealing as it was bold. Not only did she promise financial security, but she also guaranteed a monthly return of 8% — an eye-popping figure, particularly in an era of economic uncertainty. The deposits poured in. Hundreds of women from across the country entrusted their life savings to Howe, believing they were supporting a visionary cause that promised to give women equal footing in a male-dominated society.
But behind the veneer of benevolence lurked a classic Ponzi scheme. Howe wasn’t investing a penny; she was simply shuffling funds from new deposits to pay earlier investors while skimming off a hefty share to fund her own extravagant lifestyle.
When the scheme inevitably collapsed in 1880, the fallout was catastrophic. Many of Howe’s clients were left destitute. The betrayal stung even more because Howe had presented herself as a champion of women’s empowerment.
And Howe herself? Like MacGregor, she managed to slip through the cracks. After a brief stint in jail, she faded into obscurity, leaving behind a cautionary tale about misplaced trust.
But Howe was far from the most brazen con artist of the late 19th century. If there were an Olympic medal for sheer audacity, James Reavis would have taken the gold. Known as the “Baron of Arizona,” the meticulously groomed and impressively mustached Reavis orchestrated a con so elaborate it could have been plucked straight from a Hollywood script. In the 1880s, he claimed ownership of over 18,000 square miles of land across Arizona and New Mexico — a territory larger than some European countries.
Reavis backed his astounding claim with an intricate web of carefully forged documents, detailed maps, fantastic family legends, and fabricated genealogies, all purporting to trace his land rights to a Spanish land grant awarded to his wife’s family in the 18th century.
For years, Reavis collected rents and fees from settlers, railroads, and even the US government, ultimately pocketing over five million dollars. Few dared to challenge him, convinced that this phony aristocrat held legal dominion over their homes and businesses.
But as with all great frauds, the truth eventually came to light. A team of sharp-eyed government investigators uncovered the forgeries that formed the foundation of Reavis’s empire, and his house of cards collapsed. In 1896, he was convicted of fraud and sentenced to Federal prison — a fitting end for one of history’s most audacious schemers.
Of course, the 19th century wasn’t unique in terms of fraudsters, con artists, and greedy chancers who claimed virtue while ripping people off. After all, wherever there’s money, or even the promise of it, there’s always someone ready to steal it.
The Torah recognizes this timeless truth, and one of its earliest and sharpest examples is Ephron the Hittite in Parshat Chayei Sarah, whose greed and duplicity make him the devilish forebear of MacGregor, Howe, and Reavis.
At first glance, Ephron appears to be the very picture of generosity and goodwill. Abraham is mourning the loss of his wife, Sarah. He approaches Ephron to purchase the Cave of Machpelah as a place to bury her.
Ephron, playing to a hastily gathered audience of hangers-on, theatrically offers to give Machpelah to Abraham for free. “What is 400 shekels of silver between me and you?” he says magnanimously, as though the money were a mere trifle.
But Ephron’s true colors are soon revealed. His offer to gift the burial site is nothing more than a charade. Behind the grand gestures and flattering words lies a shrewd and duplicitous businessman intent on exploiting Abraham’s grief.
Ephron not only charges Abraham the total inflated price of 400 shekels, but insists that the payment be made in the highest quality silver. Ephron epitomizes the timeless brand of voracious greed cloaked in the guise of generosity.
But what makes this story so powerful is Abraham’s response. He could have called Ephron out for his hypocrisy, haggled the price, or used his considerable status to demand better treatment. Instead, Abraham insisted on paying the full price without argument, ensuring the transaction was utterly transparent and entirely irreversible. In doing so, he maintained his integrity, even in the face of Ephron’s dishonesty.
The story of Abraham and Ephron teaches a timeless lesson: in a world teeming with chicanery, the most important thing is to hold fast to your principles. Abraham’s insistence on honesty and transparency ensured his purchase would stand the test of time.
Thousands of years later, the Cave of Machpelah remains a holy site of the Jewish people, a symbol of Abraham’s righteousness, in stark and enduring contrast to the fleeting gains of fraudsters like MacGregor, Howe, and Reavis. Like Ephron’s, their names are remembered as cautionary tales, while Abraham’s legacy inspires a commitment to values that truly last.
The author is a rabbi based in Beverly Hills, California.
The post In an Era of Con Artists, the Torah Instructs Us to Hold Onto Our Integrity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks
Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli strike on a tent camp sheltering displaced people, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Israeli military said on Sunday it had begun “extensive ground operations” in northern and southern Gaza, stepping up a new campaign in the enclave.
Israel made its announcement after sources on both sides said there had been no progress in a new round of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Qatar.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the latest Doha talks included discussions on a truce and hostage deal as well as a proposal to end the war in return for the exile of Hamas militants and the demilitarization of the enclave – terms Hamas has previously rejected.
The substance of the statement was in line with previous declarations from Israel, but the timing, as negotiators meet, offered some prospect of flexibility in Israel’s position. A senior Israeli official said there had been no progress in the talks so far.
Israel’s military said it conducted a preliminary wave of strikes on more than 670 Hamas targets in Gaza over the past week to support its ground operation, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots.”
It said it killed dozens of Hamas fighters. Palestinian health authorities say hundreds of people have been killed including many women and children.
Asked about the Doha talks, a Hamas official told Reuters: “Israel’s position remains unchanged, they want to release the prisoners (hostages) without a commitment to end the war.”
He reiterated that Hamas was proposing releasing all Israeli hostages in return for an end to the war, the pull-out of Israeli troops, an end to a blockade on aid for Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
Israel’s declared goal in Gaza is the elimination of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas, which attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and seizing about 250 hostages.
The Israeli military campaign has devastated the enclave, pushing nearly all residents from their homes and killing more than 53,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.
The post Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’
Pope Leo XIV waves to the faithful from the popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass in Saint Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Alessandro Garofalo
Pope Leo XIV formally began his reign on Sunday by reaching out to conservatives who felt orphaned under his predecessor, calling for unity, vowing to preserve the Catholic Church’s heritage and not rule like “an autocrat.”
After a first ride in the popemobile through an estimated crowd of up to 200,000 in St. Peter’s Square and surrounding streets, Leo was officially installed as the 267th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church at an outdoor Mass.
Well-wishers waved US and Peruvian flags, with people from both countries claiming him as the first pope from their nations. Born in Chicago, the 69-year-old pontiff spent many years as a missionary in Peru and also has Peruvian citizenship.
Robert Prevost, a relative unknown on the world stage who only became a cardinal two years ago, was elected pope on May 8 after a short conclave of cardinals that lasted barely 24 hours.
He succeeded Francis, an Argentine, who died on April 21 after leading the Church for 12 often turbulent years during which he battled with traditionalists and championed the poor and marginalized.
In his sermon, read in fluent Italian, Leo said that as leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, he would continue Francis’ legacy on social issues such as combating poverty and protecting the environment.
He vowed to face up to “the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world” and, in a nod to conservatives, he promised to preserve “the rich heritage of the Christian faith,” repeatedly calling for unity.
Crowds chanted “Viva il Papa” (Long Live the Pope) and “Papa Leone,” his name in Italian, as he waved from the open-topped popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass, which was attended by dozens of world leaders.
US Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who clashed with Francis over the White House’s hardline immigration policies, led a US delegation alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic.
Vance briefly shook hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the start of the ceremony. The two men last met in February in the White House, when they clashed fiercely in front of the world’s media.
Zelensky and Leo were to have a private meeting later on Sunday, while Vance was expected to see the pope on Monday.
In a brief appeal at the end of the Mass, Leo addressed several global conflicts. He said Ukraine was being “martyred,” a phrase often used by Francis, and called for a “just and lasting peace” there.
He also mentioned the humanitarian situation in Gaza, saying people in the Palestinian enclave were being “reduced to starvation.”
Among those in the crowds on Sunday were many pilgrims from the US and Peru.
Dominic Venditti, from Seattle, said he was “extremely excited” by the new pope. “I like how emotional and kind he is,” he said. “I love his background.”
APPEAL FOR UNITY
Since becoming pope, Leo has already signaled some key priorities for his papacy, including a warning about the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and the importance of bringing peace to the world and to the Church itself.
Francis’ papacy left a divided Church, with conservatives accusing him of sowing confusion, particularly with his extemporaneous remarks on issues of sexual morality such as same-sex unions.
Saying he was taking up his mission “with fear and trembling,” Leo used the words “unity” or “united” seven times on Sunday and the word “harmony” four times.
“It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda or by means of power. Instead, it is always and only a question of loving, as Jesus did,” he said, in apparent reference to a war of words between Catholics who define themselves as conservative or progressive.
Conservatives also accused Francis of ruling in a heavy-handed way and lamented that he belittled their concerns and did not consult widely before making decisions.
Referring to St. Peter, the 1st century Christian apostle from whom popes derive their authority, Leo said: “Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him. On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters, and to walk alongside them.”
Many world leaders attended the ceremony, including the presidents of Israel, Peru and Nigeria, the prime ministers of Italy, Canada and Australia, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
European royals also took their place in the VIP seats near the main altar, including Spanish King Felipe and Queen Letizia.
Leo shook many of their hands at the end of the ceremony, and hugged his brother Louis, who had traveled from Florida.
As part of the ceremony, Leo received two symbolic items: a liturgical vestment known as a pallium, a sash of lambswool representing his role as a shepherd, and the “fisherman’s ring,” recalling St. Peter, who was a fisherman.
The ceremonial gold signet ring is specially cast for each new pope and can be used by Leo to seal documents, although this purpose has fallen out of use in modern times.
It shows St. Peter holding the keys to Heaven and will be broken after his death or resignation.
The post Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
JNS.org – A smattering of Arabic words has entered the English language in recent years, the direct result of more than a century of conflict between the Zionist movement and Arab regimes determined to prevent the Jews from exercising self-determination in their historic homeland.
These words include fedayeen, which refers to the armed Palestinian factions; intifada, which denotes successive violent Palestinian uprisings against Israel; and naksa, which pertains to the defeat sustained by the Arab armies in their failed bid to destroy Israel during the June 1967 war.
At the top of this list, however, is nakba, the word in Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe.” The emergence of the Palestinian refugee question following Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence is now widely described as “The Nakba,” and the term has become a stick wielded by anti-Zionists to beat Israel and, increasingly, Jews outside.
Last Thursday, a date which the U.N. General Assembly has named for an annual “Nakba Day,” workers at a cluster of Jewish-owned businesses in the English city of Manchester arrived at the building housing their offices to find that it had been badly vandalized overnight. The front of the building, located in a neighborhood with a significant Jewish community, was splattered with red paint. An external wall displayed the crudely painted words “Happy Nakba Day.”
The culprits were a group called Palestine Action, a pro-Hamas collective of activists whose sole mission is to intimidate the Jewish community in the United Kingdom in much the same way as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists did back in the 1930s. Its equivalents in the United States are groups like Within Our Lifetime and Students for Justice in Palestine, who have shown themselves equally enthused when it comes to intimidating Jewish communities by conducting loud, sometimes violent, demonstrations outside synagogues and other communal facilities, all too frequently showering Jews with the kind of abuse that was once the preserve of neo-Nazis. These thugs, cosplaying with keffiyehs instead of swastika armbands, can reasonably be described as the neo-neo-Nazis.
The overarching point here is that ideological constructs like nakba play a key role in enabling the intimidation they practice. It allows them to diminish the historic victimhood of the Jews, born of centuries of stateless disempowerment, with dimwitted formulas equating the nakba with the Nazi Holocaust. It also enables them to camouflage hate speech and hate crimes as human-rights advocacy—a key reason why law enforcement, in the United States as well as in Canada, Australia and most of Europe, has been found sorely wanting when it comes to dealing with the surge of antisemitism globally.
Part of the response needs to be legislative. That means clamping down on both sides of the Atlantic on groups that glorify designated terrorist organizations by preventing them from fundraising; policing their access to social media; and restricting their demonstrations to static events in a specific location with a predetermined limit on attendees, rather than a march that anyone can join, along with an outright ban on any such events in the environs of Jewish community buildings.
These are not independent civil society organizations, as they pretend to be, but rather extensions of terrorist organizations like Hamas and—in the case of Samidoun, another group describing itself as a “solidarity” organization—the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we cannot ban them outright, we need to contain them much more effectively. We can start by framing the issue as a national security challenge and worry less about their “freedom of speech.”
But this is also a fight that takes us into the realm of ideas and arguments. We need to stop thinking about the nakba as a Palestinian narrative of pain deserving of empathy by exposing it for what it is—another tool in the arsenal of groups whose goal is to bring about the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
When it was originally introduced in the late 1940s, the word nakba had nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinian refugees or their dubious claim to be the uninterrupted, indigenous inhabitants of a land seized by dispossessing foreign colonists. Popularized by the late Syrian writer Constantine Zureik in a 1948 book titled The Meaning of Disaster, the nakba described therein was, as the Israeli scholar Shany Mor has crisply pointed out, simply “the failure of the Arabs to defeat the Jews.”
Zureik was agonized by this defeat, calling it “one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been inflicted throughout their long history.” His story is fundamentally a story of national humiliation and wounded pride. Yet there is absolutely no reason why Jews should be remotely troubled by the neurosis it projects. Their defeat was our victory and our liberation, and we should unreservedly rejoice in that fact.
The only aspect of the nakba that we should worry about is the impact it has on us as a community, as well as on the status of Israel as a sovereign member of the international society of states. As Mizrahi Jews know well (my own family among them), the nakba assembled in Zureik’s imagination really was a “catastrophe”— for us. Resoundingly defeated on the battlefield by the superior courage and tactical nous of the nascent Israeli Defense Forces, the Arabs compensated by turning on the defenseless Jews in their midst. From Libya to Iraq, ancient and established Jewish communities were the victims of a cowardly, spiteful policy of expropriation, mob violence and expulsion.
The inheritors of that policy are the various groups that compose the Palestinian solidarity movement today. Apoplectic at the realization that they have been unable to dislodge the “Zionists”—and knowing now that the main consequence of the Oct. 7, 2023 pogrom in Israel has been the destruction of Gaza—they, too, have turned on the Jews in their midst.
They have done so with one major advantage that the original neo-Nazis never had: sympathy and endorsement from academics, celebrities, politicians and even the United Nations. Indeed, the world body hosted a two-day seminar on “Ending the Nakba” at its New York headquarters at the same time that pro-Hamas fanatics were causing havoc just a few blocks downtown. Even so, we should take heart at the knowledge that nakba is not so much a symbol of resistance as it is defeat. Just as the rejectionists and eliminationists have lost previous wars through a combination of political stupidity, diplomatic ineptitude and military flimsiness, so, too, can they lose this one.
The post The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem first appeared on Algemeiner.com.