What Comes After the Ceasefire? Jeremy Pressman Unpacks the Future of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Kashmala Khan ’29

Staff Writer

On Nov. 13 at 4:30 p.m., McCook Auditorium saw over 25 students and faculty in attendance for a panel discussion titled “Israel and Palestine: Breaking the Downward Spiral,” which was delivered by Professor Jeremy Pressman of the University of Connecticut’s Department of Political Science. The event drew a particularly high turnout from political science majors; however, students from various other disciplines and several faculty members were present as well, in light of College President Daniel Lugo’s Nov. 7 campus-wide email, “Behaviour Inconsistent With Our Values.”

Pressman began by reassessing the U.S. policy on Gaza while highlighting how recent administrations have diverged in their approaches to the conflict. He contrasted the Biden administration’s passive diplomatic strategy with Donald Trump’s more unilateral alignment with Israel. Pressman stated that the U.S. has spent the last year in attempts to negotiate directly with Hamas, but also established a Civil-Millitary Coordination Centre in Israel that would give American officials “direct eyes and ears in Gaza.” He suggested that the continuous themes of potential U.S. military presence in the region reflect Washington’s attempts to influence the trajectory of the conflict. 

“The U.S. has significant leverage over Israel,” Pressman stated as he referred to the country’s dependence on American economic and political support — which is sustained with the Congress acting as “a major pillar.” He further argued the shifting domestic politics in the U.S. while referencing a Pew Research Center poll that shows close to 40 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 49 are not viewing Israel favourably in 2025. Whether this shift persists, he acknowledged, may influence future policymaking: “If it sticks, more politicians may eventually reflect public opinion.”

Then, turning the discussion towards the humanitarian landscape, Pressman delineated that despite the temporary ceasefire, “the situation remains far from stable.” He recalled UN and OCHA reports which have indicated that food assistance remains insufficient and humanitarian partners continue to face barriers in distributing aid. Pressman further added that roughly 52% of Gaza still remains under various forms of Israeli control.

He also took the panel discussion towards analyzing Israeli regional strategy by noting that while its campaigns have weakened Iranian influence and strengthened Israeli presence in areas such as Lebanon, with some operations extending to Yemen, the war has significantly marred Israel’s global image. He claimed that despite Israel’s prime goal of destroying Hamas, the organization “still exists and is rebuilding,” which raises questions about the effectiveness of current strategies. 

Pressman devoted part of the discussion to the broader political implications of the past two years. He outlined how international actors have increasingly recognised the legitimacy of “two peoples” with claims to self-determination. Yet he criticised the long-standing U.S. approach, dating back to the 1970s, which assumes tighter U.S.-Israel relations will yield concessions. “It hasn’t worked,” he stated. He further considered the minimization of Palestinian agency in several domestic diplomatic matters, such as within the Trump administration’s peace plan which has largely sidelined Palestinians. 

Concluding with a Q&A session, on a question of governance in Gaza, Pressman referenced questions over whether a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA) could assume effective control over the region. He recalled that similar expectations have been placed on the PA in the past without much success.  

The event left attendees with a comprehensive overview of the shifting socio-political Israel-Palestine landscape. Jocelyn Flores ’29 shared that she found the talk  “very helpful to learn more about this disputed topic and hear why people disagree about it.” Another student, Dee Birajdar ’29, described Pressman as “a well-researched scholar who tried to present a balanced argument whilst eloquently presenting his opinion.” The panel concluded at 6 p.m.