TRUMP’S HASBARA: GRABBING ZELENSKY BY THE PU**Y

Trump Gaza shining bright. Golden future, a brand-new light.

Welcome to the desert of the real!

If you desire the comfort of neat conclusions, you are lost in this space. Here, we indulge in the unsettling, the excessive, the paradoxes that define our existence.

So, if you have the means and value writing that both enriches and disturbs, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

On February 25, 2025, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account a 30-second video clip which appears to have been created with generative AI and was first put online by somebody with no connection to the White House. The clip, which promotes the transformation of Gaza into a Gulf state-like resort, opens on barefoot Palestinian children walking through Gazan rubble. After a title card asks "What's next?", they walk towards a skyline of skyscrapers lining Gaza's coast, and a voice sings "Donald's coming to set you free. Trump Gaza shining bright. Golden future, a brand-new light. Feast and dance. The deed is done." The scenes shown are: Teslas driving through the streets; someone with a striking resemblance to Elon Musk eating bread dipped in hummus; Hamas militants with full beards dancing flirtatiously in bikinis and sheer belly-dancing skirts; a child holding a giant, gold Trump balloon; Trump dancing with a scantily clad woman in a nightclub; Musk showering people with cash; a "Trump Gaza" building; golden Trump merch including his statues on sale; a gigantic golden Trump statue; Trump and Netanyahu lounging topless poolside while enjoying cocktails.¹

In whatever way one understands this clip, Palestinians are deprived of minimal dignity – and dignity is important to them, in spite of or rather because of their misery. On October 20, 2024, after a 3-year-old Palestinian boy was killed by air-dropped aid in the southern city of Khan Younis in Gaza, his grandfather said: "We don't want aid. We want dignity. Enough with the humiliation and insult that we are receiving from the Arabs, not just the Israelis."²

It is easy to make fun of this weird clip, but it deserves a deeper analysis with even philosophical implications. Lacan claims that truth has the structure of a fiction – some traumatic or intense truths are easier accepted if we present them as moments of a fictitious game. Say, I am passionately in love but I am ashamed to declare it openly, so I use the situation where we both play the role of lovers in a theatre scene to say it, knowing that it will not be attributed to me as a person. In today's political propaganda, the strategy is simpler: fiction has the structure of truth, i.e., a lie is presented as truth. The Trump-Gaza clip fits neither of these two options. The first impression it gives us when we watch it is, of course, that of a tasteless satire, of ridiculous irony - but when Trump himself posted it on his Truth Social account, it looks as if he appropriated it "seriously," taking it as a possible vision of Gaza in the near future. Or was he aware that the clip was meant ironically and consciously decided to function in his real life as his own caricature? The most probable version is that Trump didn't think about it a lot at all: he saw it as a funny crazy clip and thought "It will raise controversy and make me even more popular, so why not?"

There are cases where the relationship between truth and fiction gets even more complex. In mid-February 2025, reports circulated that Israel's military were dropping leaflets across the Gaza Strip which openly threatened the territory's entire population of more than 2 million people with forced displacement or/and death - here is the message: "To the honorable people of Gaza, After the events that have taken place, the temporary ceasefire, and before the implementation of Trump's mandatory plan—which will impose forced displacement upon you whether you accept it or not—we have decided to make one final appeal to those who wish to receive aid in exchange for cooperating with us. We will not hesitate for a moment to provide assistance. Reconsider your position. The world map will not change if all the people of Gaza cease to exist. No one will feel for you, and no one will ask about you. You have been left alone to face your inevitable fate. Iran cannot even protect itself, let alone protect you, and you have seen with your own eyes what has happened. Neither America nor Europe care about Gaza in any way. Even your Arab countries, which are now our allies, provide us with money and weapons while sending you only shrouds. There is little time left—the game is almost over. Whoever wishes to save themselves before it is too late, we are here, remaining until the end of time." To add an obscene insult to injury, the message includes a passage from the Quran: "We will certainly test you with a touch of fear and famine and loss of property, life, and crops. Give good news to those who patiently endure who say, when struck by a disaster, 'Surely to Allah we belong and to Him we will all return.'"³ I think these leaflets (on the top of which there are photos of Netanyahu and Trump) are fake, false news – but done by whom? Not the Palestinians but by unofficial Israeli sources as a part of the complex psychological warfare.

The public diplomacy of Israel – called "hasbara" (roughly translated as "explaining") is a well-coordinated massive effort to justify measures which are perceived as unacceptable by global opinion. The "explaining" is done in multiple forms, by official state organs, private organizations and visible public figures (artists, journalists, scientists), but also as anonymous rumors spreading conspiracy theories or faked "documents" attributed to the enemy. Another hasbara strategy is to allow (or solicit) lower-level political figures often state openly what top leaders don't say openly or even deny – such statements, although not widely reported in the media, "explain" what the more polite statements of top politicians imply. For example, Owen Jones has shown on his podcast a recorded statement by the Israeli Deputy Parliament Speaker Nissim Vaturi which says: "Who is innocent in Gaza? Civilians went out and slaughtered people in cold blood... We need to separate women and children and kill the adults in Gaza, we are being too considerate." And then he makes an even further step, including children: "Every child born now – in this minute – is already a terrorist when he is born."⁴

This is in no way a mistake but part of a well-planned complex strategy. The amount of work grew exponentially so that the Israeli hasbara machinery had to rely also on AI – the Israeli government decided to use "AI-generated pro-Israel content and astroturfed social media campaigns." One of the new AI bots, which was reported in the press, was branded as FactFinder AI. It was designed to 'correct' misinformation, reconcile the paradoxes of hasbara, automate and expand hasbara campaigns, and reinforce Zionist narratives. However, when exposed to the real data landscape, the bot encountered undeniable realities—Israel's history of occupation, apartheid, and war crimes—and, instead of ignoring them (as Zionist hasbara does), the AI bot began processing them into responses. Israel's AI hasbara campaign backfired spectacularly, because even AI, when confronted with historical records, existing media narratives, and empirical data, could not fabricate a coherent pro-Israel stance because there is no coherent pro-Israel stance.⁵

The result was thus that AI glitches happen from time to time – glitches which are "not just a technical malfunction; it is a symbolic rupture, an inevitable revelation of the inherent failure of Zionist ideology it was designed to serve."⁶ And what if the genocide leaflet is something similar: not simply a glitch but a second-level fake: a fake document whose very (rather obvious) "glitches" (the leaflet is printed on paper with Shin Bet marks; the reference to Quran is ridiculous, no Muslim Arab would write like that...) were intended and serve a precise function? What if the true goal of the "discovery" of this leaflet was to sow doubt about its own authenticity, but at the same time leaving behind the vague impression that there must be some truth even in this fiction?

But with such glitches, we didn't yet reach the level of Trump-speak which works in a different way: Trump doesn't even try to mask contradictions or constant shifts in his position. From day to day, he blurts out what pops up in his mind – not (as some think) as part of his mental confusion but as the result of his (fully conscious) assumption of the role of a Master beyond law and logic, a master who asserts his power by way of constantly changing what he claims. One day Zelensky is a legitimate leader of Ukraine to be received in the White House, the next day he is a dictator; one day Russia attacked Ukraine, the next day Ukraine defends itself against Russian aggression; one day EU is a respected partner reproached just for not doing enough for the West, the next day Trump says EU was formed to "screw" the US...

A true Master doesn't just obey the rules and laws – from time to time, he makes an unexpected gesture, changes a political line, condemns or pardons a person, without giving any clear reasons. Such changes are a way for the Master to assert his unconditional authority. When, usually in late evenings, Stalin was confirming long lists of people to be shot, he from time to time inexplicably crossed out a name (although in all probability he didn't even know who that person was) – the total opacity of such acts made his authority unconditional. However, there is a difference here between Stalin and Trump. What was with Stalin an exception (to the reign of a brutal law) is for Trump a modus operandi. Trump is here effectively an anti-Stalin (not that this makes him any better – to paraphrase Stalin, Trump and Stalin are both worse). In both cases, factual truth takes second place; however, in Stalinism, the ignorance of factual truth is part of a precise hermeneutics – the very fact that a statement is factually not true delivers a clear message. The gap that separates exactitude (factual truth, accuracy about facts) and Truth (the Cause to which we are committed) was precisely formulated by Jean-Claude Milner:

"When one admits the radical difference between exactitude and truth, only one ethical maxim remains: never oppose the two. Never make of the inexact the privileged means of the effects of truth. Never transform these effects into by-products of the lie. Never make the real into an instrument of the conquest of reality. And I would allow myself to add: never make revolution into the lever of an absolute power."⁷