The death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat last week is a seminal moment in the long and troubled history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict seen by a consensus of scholars, policymakers and much of the global public as the defining issue of contemporary Middle East politics.

While there is universal agreement of Arafat's consequential footprint in history, there is stark disagreement over whether those consequences were for better or worse. But let's take a step back to figure out how all this got started.

The seeds for the conflict were planted back after World War I when the Ottoman Empire lost its grip on its Middle Eastern holdings, allowing Great Britain and France to fill the empire vacuum in that region and carve out the territories of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and, out of what was known as "southern Syria," the territories of Palestine and Transjordan (today known as Jordan). The British subsequently issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which sought to restore the "Jewish Home" in Palestine. Now fast-forward to November 29, 1947. The United Nations approved of the partitioning of the British-mandated Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. That very day, as a culmination of growing Arab opposition to the restoration of the Jewish home, intense fighting broke out throughout Palestine, eventually leading to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan and Saudi Arabia declaring war on Israel as it declared its independence from Britain on May 15, 1948. Thus the Arab-Israeli conflict -- one that would bring a half century of wars, uprisings and military incursions to the present day -- was born.

Enter Yasser Arafat.

Born in Egypt in 1929, his father was a Palestinian merchant living in Cairo, the young Arafat sympathized with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood organization, but ended up secretly founding Fatah, the Movement for the Liberation of Palestine, shortly after Israel declared its independence. Fatah's stated aim was to avenge for what Palestinians called the "1948 Catastrophe" by driving Israel into the Mediterranean Sea. After a stint in the Egyptian army, Arafat became the head of Fatah's military wing in 1965 and conducted their first attacks against Israel. Following the devastating 1967 War during which the Israelis routed a coalition of Arab nations and took the present-day hotspots of Gaza and the West Bank, Arafat's Fatah faction was the "last man standing" against the Israelis. Shortly thereafter, inspired by his leadership of Fatah, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), an entity formed a few years earlier by the Arab league, voted Arafat its chairman in 1969.

Arafat was now on the world stage as the voice for Palestinian statehood. And from there, the debate begins. In the 30-plus years since Arafat took the reigns of the PLO, his efforts to further the Palestinian cause of statehood have been deemed either that of a heroic leader or that of a terrorist.

"Arafat was a great man who united his people and gave them hope when everyday seemed like a struggle to survive," Palestinian student Husam Katnani (sophomore-bioengineering)said. "[He] was a father more than a leader; he was guidance in any situation."

Hamdan Yousuf (junior-economics and mathematics) said, "Arafat brought the plight of his people into the national forum, making him a martyr not only for Palestinians, but for all lovers of justice around the world."

Others however don't quite hold Arafat in the same light.

Daniel Michelson-Horowitz, chair of Penn State Hillel's Israel Action Committee, said, "Arafat was a terrorist to the day he died."

"He was an impediment to the peace process, and his actions have directly caused the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians," he said.

Citing what he said is Arafat's "hatred" of the Jews and his marshalling of the rise of modern terrorism, Tuvia Abramson, Executive Director for Penn State Hillel, said, "I see no difference between Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden. I do see a difference between how world leaders see him [from bin Laden]."

Clearly there is a difference of opinion, to put it lightly, over Arafat's place in history. But, why?

Muslim and Arab students I contacted were unified in their belief that Israeli policies, including the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and not recognizing Palestinian statehood, have been responsible for the Palestinian uprisings.

"Middle East politics will change only, and I stress only, if Israel alters its current position," Alisar Zahr (graduate-chemical engineering) said.

Added Shady Rashed, a non-degree student from Egypt, "The Palestinian attacks are against an occupation," thereby providing for a legitimate act of self-defense.

Michelson-Horowitz and Abramson, meanwhile, were of the opinion that Arafat never wanted peace and that Israel has also acted only in self-defense.

Despite the clashing perspectives, there is common ground. Both camps, to an extent, believe peace is possible with a two-state solution.

"I firmly believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, side-by-side, in peace with Israel," Michelson-Horowitz said.

In the months and years ahead, we will see if Arafat's death provides that opportunity for a meaningful peace, a peace that would undoubtedly be a victory for Israelis and Palestinians and the rest of the world. There is certainly cause for optimism. "I can picture sometime in the future that we will see Palestinian kids playing with Israeli kids," Zahr said.

Let's hope that day comes soon.