As President Donald Trump tries to draw the war with Iran to a definitive close, support for Israel is cratering among American voters, especially young Americans. According to a Pew Research Center survey published this week, a majority (60%) of U.S. adults hold an “unfavorable” view of Israel, up seven points in the space of one year, while just about as many (59%) say that they do not trust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “do the right thing” in terms of handling and responding to global affairs.

Eight in 10 Democrats say that they have an unfavorable view of Israel, including majorities of both adults under 50 (84%) and adults 50 and older (76%). Republicans are far more generationally divided on the issue. While less than a quarter (24%) of Republicans 50 and older say that they have an unfavorable view of Israel, a growing majority (57%) of Republicans under 50 say that they do, up from 50% last year.

Republicans generally are evenly split on Netanyahu, with 45% saying that they have confidence that the Israeli prime minister will respond well to world affairs and 45% saying that they do not expect him to. Once again, generational differences account for a significant shift among GOP voters: nearly 60% of Republicans under the age of 50 say that they do not trust Netanyahu, while two-thirds (66%) of Republicans over the age of 50 say that they do trust Netanyahu.

Additionally, the only religious demographics who say that they hold a favorable view of Israel are Jews (64%) and white evangelical Protestants (65%). Israel’s favorability rating is significantly lower among white mainline Protestants (39%), Catholics (35%), black Protestants (33%), atheists and agnostics (22%), and Muslims (4%).

The survey was conducted shortly after the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce released a nearly 60-page report tracing an increase in pro-Hamas and anti-Israel sentiment and activity on college and university campuses. “How Campuses Became Hotbeds: The Rise of Radical Antisemitism on College Campuses” focuses on the increase in anti-Israel agitation on campuses following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and examines whether college and university leadership upheld Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in preventing the proliferation of such agitation or allowed or even encouraged it. Title VI stipulates that educational institutions receiving federal funds must prohibit discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The report “examined the institutional, ideological, and financial forces fueling this pervasive antisemitism.” The report is based on committee hearings and investigations conducted over the past year with Barnard College, Bowdoin College, California Polytechnic State Institute, the City University of New York, DePaul University, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Haverford College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, Pomona College, San Luis Obispo, Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of California Berkeley. “Many of these colleges and universities are included as case studies in this report,” the executive summary stated, “but all of them have exhibited failures in grappling with the scourge of antisemitism on their campuses.”

The report returned four key findings. First, it determined that college and university leadership did not take sufficient action to prevent anti-Israel activity on campus. “Decisive, strong leadership by university presidents is critical for preventing and correcting a hostile antisemitic environment on campus, as is apparent from every case study in this report,” the committee concluded. “Strong leaders consistently enforce policies that protect Jewish students; they publicly condemn antisemitism fomented by students, faculty, or staff; they investigate and punish antisemitic harassment and violence,” the report stipulated, charging that the investigated college and university leaders failed to meet these requirements.

Second, the report found, “Faculty members have played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying antisemitism on college campuses.” It noted that faculty members at the investigated colleges and universities sought to “strip Jewish students of protections” and, in many cases, promoted anti-Israel content in classrooms, hosted lectures and programs that “demonized Israel,” and even played a role in inciting anti-Israel protests, including those that “turned violent.” Third, the report found that student organizations — namely, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) — played an outsized role in organizing and inciting anti-Israel activism on campuses and “consistently acted as ringleaders for the antisemitic harassment faced by Jewish students on campus.” College and university leadership nearly unanimously “failed to meaningfully discipline students for this violence and even acceded to their antisemitic demands,” the report stated.

Finally, the report noted that satellite campuses in the Middle East have become hotbeds for anti-Israel activity and programming. In particular, the report singled out Northwestern University’s and Georgetown University’s satellite campuses in Qatar, which the report said are “failing in critical ways to fulfill their stated goal of promoting Western values and liberal education abroad…” The satellite campuses, the report concluded, have hosted faculty, student organizations, events, and programming that “perpetuate antisemitism without apparent consequence, in addition to struggling to uphold free speech principles.”

The report recommended that college and university leaders reform campus protest policies, enforce school policies prohibiting harassment and violence, conduct more rigorous oversight of satellite campuses, and more thoroughly examine the social media presence of faculty applicants. “Universities that receive federal funding have a legal obligation to protect Jewish students under Title VI,” the report concluded. “When institutions fail to uphold that obligation, they not only endanger their student[s] but undermine the principles of equal protection and nondiscrimination that federal law requires.”