Student Senate held discussion for nearly three hours on a single referendum question in their weekly meeting Sunday.

The question, submitted by Students for a Free Palestine, reads, “Should Oberlin College put a block on investments with any companies involved with the Israeli military?” Senate had already approved the question, but members of Oberlin Zionists attending the meeting said the question was biased, offensive and should be removed from the referendum, or at least tabled until next year for further discussion.

“The question assumes Israel is the only aggressor in a complicated situation with years of history,” junior Yael Levin said.

Levin said the referendum was not an appropriate venue for discussion of divestment.

OZ members voiced disappointment at Student Senate for not consulting them on the question before voting to approve it.

“As a student body, we trust the Senate to involve people,” sophomore Aviva Richman said. “Senate failed to tell people about an important issue that students are involved in.”

Student Senate does not have a formal process for reviewing referendum questions. Senate invites all chartered student groups to submit questions. Richman and Levin offered three suggestions on how to rephrase the question more fairly.

“If there is evidence that the College invests in country’s militaries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, China, India, the U.S. and others, would you be in favor of blocking these investments?” one read. OZ member first-year Ezra Tenko called the question anti-Semitic and impractical.

“The question does not state how divestment would be enacted,” Tenko said. “The American government provides military aid to Israel, so should we divest from the public sector?”

Tenko said the question could encourage division and enflame an emotional issue, resulting in events similar to last year’s “Zionism is racism” graffiti.

Members of SFP in attendance claimed their cause was being unfairly singled out.

“Why is only our question open to debate?” senior Haley Pollack asked. “We can never fully inform students on any issue. This is a manipulative way to silence the discourse.”

SFP member junior Lina Elbadawi said their question should not have to include other countries.

“If any organization wants a question they can submit it,” Elbadawi said. “This is what we chose based on our agenda and our charter. Anyone could have brought up any other country.”

SFP member sophomore Lee Garagliano said that divestment from Israel was a more salient issue than divestment from other countries.

“Divestment from Israel is part of a movement across the country,” Garagliano said. “The U.S. has a special relationship with the Israeli government, so we should use our power to change that relationship.”

Student senator first-year Keerat Singh defended the senate’s process, though he acknowledged it was not perfect.

“Senate can never represent everyone perfectly, even as a diverse group of 15 people from all walks of life,” Singh said. “But people need to have faith that Student Senate considers the referendum questions [before approving them]. No one has the right to come in here and poison the process. If you feel it is a biased question, then you need to take that to the students.”

Student senator Curtis Ferguson said tabling the question wasn’t feasible.

“We will have new senators next year,” Ferguson said. “We can’t make the decision [to put this question on their referendum].”

In Executive Session, Senate voted to re-open discussion on the question. After discussion, Senate voted to keep the question on the referendum.

Senate planned to send out the referendum Wednesday.