A Singular Omission?

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head).


I have read with interest and approval your recent editorials on a good many of the more interesting and important features of the war, and I was beginning to think that the war was proving a maturing influence, that the war was making earnest, serious-minded men out of careless boys. But your editorial in yesterday morning's CRIMSON headed "Jerusalem" might have been written by the most light-headed Freshman that ever came to College, back in the ante-bellum days.

I. for one, find it impossible to believe that you are taking your work as seriously as you should when you allow such an editorial to appear in your columns--an editorial that purports to point out the spiritual significance of the taking of Jerusalem by the British without pointing out its spiritual significance to the Jewish people; without mentioning the Jews in any historical, religious or political sense whatever, as if the two words--Jew and Jerusalem--did not connote one another; and without even recalling the recent promise of the British Empire, given when the ultimate taking of Jerusalem was assured, that Jerusalem would be given to the Jews as soon as the conditions of war permitted. JOSEPH HOBBLIT '18.   Dec. 11, 1917.