For 10 months, the families of Israeli hostages held by Hamas have led protests, blanketed local and international media and begged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree a deal that would bring their loved ones home — even if it meant ending the war against Hamas.

So far, they have failed. But on Sunday, as news spread that six more hostages had been found dead in a tunnel underneath Gaza, apparently recently executed by their Hamas captors less than a kilometre from Israeli troops, a new wave of public anger swept Israel. Much of it was directed at Netanyahu.

By Sunday night, tens of thousands of Israelis were streaming through Tel Aviv streets, demanding that Netanyahu compromise and accept a deal that could see the hostages released in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and the freeing of thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

On Monday morning, a general strike shut down much of country after an influential trade union bowed to calls from the families of the hostages. Ben Gurion international airport halted departures, while universities, shopping malls and ports were shuttered.

But the public outpouring of grief and anger also reflected a divided nation — Netanyahu’s far-right allies, including finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, assailed the protesters and union leaders for “fulfilling [Hamas chief Yahya] Sinwar’s dream”. Several right-wing cities and settlements said they would not join the strike.

The tension between the two camps has grown with the realisation that time is quickly running out for the remaining 101 hostages in Hamas custody. At least 35 of them are already presumed dead by Israeli officials.

Relatives of the captives, meanwhile, are growing more desperate — and angry at Netanyahu. “If we do not succeed to get the Israeli government to an unqualified yes, then the evidence is out there that all of those hostages will die in Hamas captivity,” said Jonathan Dekel-Chen, the father of 35-year-old hostage Sagui, taken from a kibbutz on October 7.

“There is no reasonable explanation [for Netanyahu’s rejection of the deal] other than domestic political considerations and the retention of power,” he added.

Smotrich and other far-right ministers have threatened repeatedly to collapse Netanyahu’s coalition if he were to accept a deal tied to a comprehensive ceasefire, demanding greater military pressure on Hamas to free the hostages.

But so far, Israel’s military has managed to rescue just eight of the roughly 240 people taken hostage on October 7 and has killed three by mistake. However, 105 were released in November in a negotiated swap for Palestinian prisoners, during a shortlived ceasefire when humanitarian aid surged into the besieged enclave.

Hamas has blamed Sunday’s hostage deaths, and many previous captive fatalities, on Israeli air strikes and Netanyahu’s intransigence. It has not shifted in its core demand that any comprehensive hostage release — including of Israeli soldiers taken captive — hinges on a complete ceasefire, repeating that demand on Sunday afternoon.

But that second, negotiated hostage-for-prisoner swap has proved elusive, despite a mid-August push by the US, Egypt and Qatar to persuade the warring parties to agree to a US-backed proposal. The lack of progress has led to a public blame game that has divided Israeli politics and exasperated mediators.

Talks appear to have stalled because Hamas has demanded assurances that a lasting ceasefire will follow the hostage swap, and that Israeli troops will withdraw completely from Gaza. For his part, Netanyahu has insisted on demands that the Israeli military remains in control of the Gaza-Egypt border.

“The delay in signing the deal has led to [Sunday’s] deaths and those of many other hostages,” said the Hostage and Missing Families forum, an advocacy group. “We call to Netanyahu: Stop hiding. Provide the public with a justification for this ongoing abandonment.”

It remains to be seen whether this fresh anger will build enough political pressure to force Netanyahu to change his position.

The Israeli public has largely supported a negotiated deal with Hamas to free the hostages, according to several polls, but regular protests in Tel Aviv have yet to coalesce into a large national movement.

On Sunday, the mood appeared to be shifting as the streets swelled with protesters and much of the media and political opposition demanded that Netanyahu compromise.

But Netanyahu — Israel’s longest-serving premier — has weathered larger, more sustained protests before. “We’ve done so much to galvanise the public, to make sure that there is a majority [in the public opinion] for a deal,” said Moshe Lavi, the brother-in-law of hostage Omri Miran.

“But we are unable to penetrate the sole decision maker who needs to make the call — and if he is unwilling to make that call, he should be honest with the families,” he added.

“I spoke to many political and security officials, and heard that a deal is not progressing because of political considerations,” said Arnon Bar-David, chair of the Histadrut labour federation.

Dahlia Scheindlin, a veteran pollster who has followed the protest movement closely, said that while it wasn’t clear public sentiment could force Netanyahu’s hand, “if . . . there is a general strike and influential social and political leaders help bring the country to a standstill, that could possibly tip the government into changing its policy”.

Netanyahu rejected the accusation that his demands over the Egypt-Gaza border had held up a possible deal, saying Hamas had refused to enter serious negotiations for months. He said Israel had agreed to an updated framework for the US-backed deal, something Hamas has officially turned down.

“In recent days, as Israel has been holding intensive negotiations with the mediator in a supreme effort to reach a deal, Hamas is continuing to steadfastly refuse all proposals,” Netanyahu said. “Even worse, at the exact same time, it murdered six of our hostages.”

But leaks to Israel’s Channel 12 news over the weekend painted a different picture, enraging many of the families of the hostages, who have long warned that Netanyahu was delaying a deal to keep his coalition together.

Channel 12 reported that the premier clashed on Thursday at a cabinet meeting with his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, who warned that Netanyahu’s insistence on keeping Israeli troops along the Egypt-Gaza border threatened the talks to free the hostages and voted against it.

“The cabinet must gather immediately and reverse the decision made on Thursday,” said Gallant after the bodies were retrieved. “It is too late for the hostages who were murdered in cold blood.”

About 40,000 Palestinians have been killed since Hamas’s October 7 attack, according to local health officials, most of them women and children, as the Israeli military has destroyed large parts of the enclave. At least 1,200 people were killed by Hamas during its cross-border raid into Israel, according to the government, including many civilians.

The war has created a rapidly deepening humanitarian crisis marked by extreme hunger, the spread of disease and the displacement of most of Gaza’s 2.3mn civilians into UN shelters and sprawling tent cities.

The Alternative for Germany has won elections in the eastern region of Thuringia, the first time a far-right party has secured victory in a state poll in the country’s postwar history.

According to preliminary results, the AfD garnered 32.8 per cent in Thuringia, way ahead of all other parties. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was in second place with 23.6 per cent.

In the neighbouring state of Saxony, projections by public broadcaster ZDF put the two parties neck and neck, with the CDU projected to win 31.9 per cent and the AfD to come second with 30.6 per cent.

Tino Chrupalla, the AfD’s co-leader, described the party’s result in Thuringia as “sensational”. 

“One thing is clear: the will of the voters is that there should be political change, both in Saxony and in Thuringia,” he said. “If you want to do credible politics, you won’t be able to do it without the AfD.”

The results are a disaster for the parties in chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-way coalition, with the Social Democrats, Greens and liberals all predicted to sink to single-digits in both states.

In Thuringia, the SPD had its worst result in a regional election in postwar German history, scoring just 6.1 per cent.

They reflect mounting voter frustration among East Germans with a government many associate with high inflation, economic stagnation, surging energy costs and constant internecine squabbling.

But they also show how voters are increasingly abandoning the centre ground for populist parties on the political margins.

Omid Nouripour, the Greens’ co-chair, described the election as a “turning point”.

“People from the world of culture, people with immigrant roots, people who go to Gay Pride are really scared,” Nouripour said. “We have to stand together with them and defend democracy.”

The AfD is not the only beneficiary of the East Germans’ anger: they also voted in large numbers for a new far-left party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which won 15.8 per cent in Thuringia and was projected by ZDF to win 11.8 per cent in Saxony.

Voters were attracted to both the AfD and BSW by their opposition to the war in Ukraine. Both parties have heavily criticised German weapons supplies to Kyiv, as well as western sanctions against Russia, and called for negotiations to bring about an end to the fighting.

The result has shown that 34 years after German reunification, a majority of people in two regions of the former communist east of the country are deeply disillusioned with the mainstream parties of the centre and frustrated with the way Germany is run.

Despite its stunning performance in Thuringia, the AfD will not be able to form a government there. Since no other party will co-operate with it, it will not enjoy the parliamentary majority needed to rule.

The AfD, which was formed 11 years ago by economists angry at the Eurozone bailouts, has morphed into a hardline, historically revisionist nationalist party vehemently opposed to immigration.

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has designated the party’s local Saxon and Thuringian branches as “rightwing extremist”.

In Thuringia the party is led by Björn Höcke, an ethno-nationalist who has been fined twice by local courts this year for using banned Nazi slogans in speeches to supporters. 

It could prove difficult to form viable coalitions without the AfD, however. For the CDU to govern in Thuringia, for example, it might have to team up with the BSW, an option that would be hard to swallow for many in the centre-right party. 

Wagenknecht, a former communist who many see as an apologist for Russian President Vladimir Putin, has made changing Germany’s policy on Ukraine a precondition for any coalition talks.

She said her voters wanted to see “a different foreign policy in Germany”.

“They want to achieve more peace, more diplomacy, and that’s our condition for [joining] a government,” she said on ZDF.

That has triggered outrage in the CDU, which has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine and has pressed the Scholz government, already the second-largest provider of military assistance to Kyiv after the US, to supply even more weapons.

Höcke has taken a similar position to Wagenknecht, saying in his campaign speeches that the AfD was against Germany “being dragged into a war with Russia by some wacko western elites”.

But it might even prove impossible for the CDU to form a government with the BSW. Analysis by ZDF showed that even a three-way coalition between the CDU, BSW and the Social Democrats would be one seat short of a majority in the 90-seat Thuringian parliament. 

The election campaign was also overshadowed by the August 23 terror attack in the west German town of Solingen, when a man fatally stabbed three people and injured eight others. The man, a Syrian national suspected of being a member of Isis, was arrested a day after the attack after handing himself in to police.

Both the AfD and BSW seized on the incident to claim that uncontrolled immigration had led to a surge in violent crime on German streets and to demand that asylum-seekers who have committed crimes be deported.

The disastrous performance of the three parties in Scholz’s coalition — the SPD, Greens and liberals — has led to speculation that one of them might withdraw from the government, triggering snap elections.

But experts say such an outcome is unlikely. All three are polling so badly nationwide that there is little appetite to face voters ahead of the next scheduled election in the autumn of 2025.

Donald Trump’s new proposal for the government or insurance companies to be mandated to pay for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment for Americans has already divided the Republican party – with two GOP senators giving opposing stances on the matter on Sunday.

The ex-president has been trying to navigate the post-Roe landscape since 2022, with limited success. As his presidential campaign has progressed throughout 2024, Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for appointing Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn federal protections on abortion — while he has simultaneously sought to distance himself from hardline opponents of abortion who are seeking to ban IVF and other fertility treatments, as well as the stricter end of GOP-led proposals to ban abortion at various points during the pregnancy.

Over the past week, the former president made his latest attempt.

Speaking to NBC News minutes before taking the stage in Potterville, Michigan, the ex-president made two announcements on the issue.

First, he put forward a plan to force insurance companies or the federal government to cover the costs of IVF for all Americans. And second, he came out against Florida’s six-week abortion ban, which he said restricted abortion too early into the pregnancy.

Campaign aides would clarify over the next few days that this did not mean he would support a ballot measure up for debate this year in Florida that would enshrine abortion access into the state constitution.

Both statements triggered furious responses from within his own party. Anti-abortion groups and supporters of Florida’s conservative Governor Ron DeSantis ripped Trump for his supposed betrayal in statements to the press and on social media.

And on Sunday, two Republican senators appearing in separate interviews across NBC and ABC took opposite positions on the pledge by Trump to fund IVF either through public or private means — suggesting that the plan will cause more internal divisions for the right as the general election nears.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton — a MAGA populist — said that he could see himself supporting the former president’s plan and added that he thought “most Republicans” would be open to doing so.

“It’s something I’m open to, that most Republicans would be open to,” he said, before adding that he would need to determine the “fiscal impact” of such a proposal first and consider “whether the taxpayer can afford to pay for this, what impact it would have on premiums.”

He went on to claim that to his knowledge, no Republicans in Congress opposed the legality of IVF (a factually untrue statement, whether he knows it or not) and claimed that no state governments made fertility care “unaccessible” — though it was briefly blocked in Alabama earlier this year after a push by conservatives to extend the rights of a human being to unborn fetuses through the courts. That same strategy is being pushed by supporters of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for reshaping the federal government, which is tied to numerous former Trump administration officials.

“In principle, supporting couples who are trying to use IVF or other fertility treatments — I don’t think that’s controversial at all,” Cotton added.

But the same morning that Cotton proclaimed Republicans would be open to Trump’s proposal, Lindsey Graham appeared on ABC’s This Week and immediately dimissed that idea.

Trump, he argued, was trying to show his support for the practice of providing IVF treatments to families seeking to have children. The furthest Graham seemed prepared to go was a hypothetical tax credit for families undergoing IVF but he was firmly opposed to forcing insurance companies to directly fund the procedure. He added that it may be an issue on which Republicans could find “common ground” with Democrats.

“I wouldn’t [support that] because there’s no end to that,” he said. “I think a tax credit for children makes sense, means tested.”

“We’ve been accused — the party has — of being against birth control. We’re not. We’ve been accused of being against IVF treatments. We’re not,” Graham added as his explanation for Trump’s latest announcement.

First, though, he’ll have to find common ground with the rest of his party. Graham remains the lead Senate supporter of efforts to restrict abortion at the national level — an idea the Trump campaign has repeatedly insisted the former president opposes.

JD Vance, Trump’s running mate and Graham’s colleague in the Senate GOP caucus, echoed that opposition last week on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Regardless of how GOP senators and members of Congress come out on the issue of funding for IVF over the next days or weeks, the Republican party will still have to contend with the push by the anti-abortion right to extend “personhood” rights to unborn fetuses through the court system. Many on the far right are looking at the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 2022, as the easiest vessel to achieve their goal of banning abortion and some fertility care nationwide without going through Congress.

The Harris campaign continues to pummel Trump over the twin issues of abortion and IVF as well. Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has talked about his own experiences seeking fertility treatments with his wife as Democrats have argued that Republicans are overreaching into Americans’ personal and private medical choices.

“Donald Trump’s own platform could effectively ban IVF and abortion nationwide,” Sarafina Chitika, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, said on Thursday.

“Trump lies as much if not more than he breathes, but voters aren’t stupid. Because Trump overturned Roe vs. Wade, IVF is already under attack and women’s freedoms have been ripped away in states across the country. There is only one candidate in this race who trusts women and will protect our freedom to make our own health care decisions: Vice President Kamala Harris.”