by J. André Faust (Nov 16, 2025)
There is a saying that “politics makes for strange bedfellows,” which refers to strategic alliances between political actors who would otherwise be adversaries but come together to achieve a shared goal. However, when comparing Trump and Netanyahu, this phrase does not apply. A more accurate descriptor is “likeness attracts likeness.” Their relationship is not a marriage of convenience but a resonance of similarity.
Trump and Netanyahu can both be described as Machiavellian, as they seem to follow the philosophy often summarised as “the end justifies the means” in their efforts to maintain leadership control (Machiavelli, 1532/1998). To be fair, most political actors adopt some flavour of Machiavellian strategy, but few do so as openly or as consistently as Trump and Netanyahu, and in different ways, Putin, Zelenskyy, and Xi Jinping.
This discussion highlights the similarities and techniques Trump and Netanyahu use to influence the masses, both domestically and globally. To appreciate these techniques, it is useful to draw on concepts from sociopolitical theory. Three in particular apply here:
- Homophily – the tendency for similar individuals to cluster.
- Ideological convergence – shared values that create stable partnerships.
- Mutual narrative reinforcement – each actor supports and amplifies the other’s myth and messaging.
While Putin and Xi Jinping also employ Machiavellian tactics, the key difference is that their political philosophies diverge sharply from those of Trump and Netanyahu. If a close strategic relationship were to form between Trump and Putin or Trump and Xi, the phrase “politics makes strange bedfellows” would be appropriate. In contrast, the interaction between Trump and Netanyahu can be understood as a phase resonance between similar information systems, where their political signals operate on the same frequency and naturally amplify one another.
Comparison Table, Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Xi
| Concept | Meaning | Trump & Netanyahu | Trump & Putin | Trump & Xi Jinping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strange bedfellows | Unlikely partners forced together by circumstance or strategic necessity | ❌ No | ✔️ Yes | ✔️ Yes |
| Likeness attracts likeness | Similar forces naturally align due to shared worldview | ✔️ Yes | ⚠️ Partially, limited ideological overlap | ❌ Not really, alignment is admiration based rather than worldview based |
| Homophily | Similar actors cluster socially or politically | ✔️ Yes | ❌ No, they do not share political identity | ❌ No, entirely different political systems and identities |
| Phase resonance (4D model) | Similar signal patterns reinforce each other | ✔️ Strong resonance | ⚠️ Weak to moderate, tactical rather than ideological | ⚠️ Weak, resonance is psychological (admiration), not structural |
Both Trump’s and Netanyahu’s misinformation and denials create a persuasion feedback loop, a self amplifying cognitive system. Rather than addressing the truth, it deflects from it, exploits emotional coherence and group identity, and sustains itself by continuously feeding perception back into belief.
This feedback loop unfolds across five stages: Seeding the Frame, Resonance and Amplification, Emotional Entrenchment, Feedback Reinforcement, and Policy Manifestation. Each stage functions as part of a broader mechanism of influence.
Stage 01, Seeding the Frame
This stage introduces a simple, emotionally loaded claim that creates an immediate emotional “truth” which feels intuitively right to supporters. It works through emotionally charged language, fear, outrage, and patriotism. It anchors abstract ideas such as “violence” or “chaos” to a visible symbol, for example Antifa or Hamas. This low cognitive load messaging is easy to repeat, easy to believe, and serves as the initial emission, a wave packet of meaning entering the public information field.
Stage 02, Resonance and Amplification
The claim is echoed through sympathetic media and social platforms until the message becomes omnipresent and self validating. Repetition triggers the illusory truth effect, where familiarity becomes a substitute for accuracy (Fazio et al., 2015). Social media algorithms prioritise emotionally arousing content, creating amplification bias and helping false or polarising narratives travel faster and farther than corrective information (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Counter narratives are reframed as “attacks” by enemies, such as “fake news,” “deep state,” or “antisemitism.” In four dimensional terms, this is constructive interference: overlapping signals increase amplitude and coherence inside the echo chamber.
Stage 03, Emotional Entrenchment
Belief becomes tied to identity, converting information into belonging. Accepting the message signals loyalty to the in group; rejecting it signals betrayal or alignment with the enemy. Cognitive dissonance discourages reassessment and stabilises belief through emotion. This is phase locking: once waves align in phase, they maintain synchrony and resist decoherence.
Stage 04, Feedback Reinforcement
Opposition fuels confirmation. Criticism is reframed as persecution, and resistance energy is absorbed and re emitted back into the system, strengthening its coherence. This is negative feedback inversion, where attacks become proof that the message was correct all along.
Stage 05, Policy Manifestation
Emotionally solidified narratives translate into real world action. Emotional consensus creates political cover for extraordinary measures; long before evidence is demanded, the decision has already been normalised.
Examples include Trump’s efforts to classify Antifa as a terrorist organisation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020), or Netanyahu’s military escalations and expanded emergency powers during conflict periods (Haaretz, 2024). This is wave collapse: potential narratives condense into concrete outcomes such as policy, executive orders, or societal polarisation.
How These Stages Apply to Trump and Netanyahu
Seed Claim, Constructing existential threats. Both leaders frame abstract enemies as existential threats. Trump invokes Antifa, immigrants, or the “deep state,” while Netanyahu highlights Hamas, the United Nations, or critics of Israel’s military conduct. Criticism becomes equated with betrayal, and an emotional narrative replaces empirical complexity.
Resonance and Amplification, Echo through loyal media. Trump uses Fox News, Breitbart, and Truth Social as primary echo chambers (Pew Research Center, 2020); Netanyahu uses Channel 14, Israel Hayom, and aligned social media networks to reinforce his framing (The Guardian, 2023). Each dominates their information environment and casts opposing journalism as “enemy propaganda,” producing constructive resonance within the partisan field.
Emotional Entrenchment, Identity as proof of loyalty. Trump ties loyalty to patriotism and “Make America Great Again,” while Netanyahu evokes survival narratives such as “defending the Jewish people” and “never again.” The emotional stakes override policy debate; dissent feels like sacrilege. This phase locking suggests that once emotional coherence is achieved, facts no longer alter belief.
Feedback Reinforcement, Turning criticism into fuel. Fact checking or indictment becomes evidence that “the system fears Trump” (BBC News, 2023). International criticism of Gaza is framed as proof that “the world is against Israel” (Al Jazeera, 2024). Opposition strengthens in group cohesion through negative feedback inversion.
Policy Manifestation, Emotional truths translate into political action. Trump’s narrative culminated in terrorism designations and immigration bans (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). Netanyahu’s culminated in broad military campaigns framed as self defence, restrictions on dissent, and expanded emergency powers (Haaretz, 2024). Potential narratives condense into tangible political reality.
Structural Parallels
| Function | Trump | Netanyahu | 4D connectivity analogue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threat narrative | Antifa, “deep state” | Hamas, “international bias” | Seed claim, initial emission |
| Media echo | Conservative media | Right aligned Israeli media | Constructive interference |
| Identity politics | “Patriot” vs “traitor” | “Zionist” vs “self hating Jew” | Phase locking |
| Response to criticism | “Witch hunt” | “Anti Semitic bias” | Negative feedback inversion |
| Result | Normalisation of extraordinary measures | Justification of indefinite militarisation | Wave collapse, policy manifestation |
Why does this work, and why is it dangerous? Both leaders exploit the psychological architecture of fear and belonging, turning uncertainty into certainty through repetition. Each creates a closed semantic system in which new information is either assimilated or rejected based on emotional fit rather than evidential truth.
This behaviour is not mere coincidence; it is a shared rhetorical technology, optimised for polarised democracies.
To summarise, unlike Putin or Xi Jinping, whose collaboration with Trump would represent a “strange bedfellows” relationship because their political philosophies are drastically different from Trump’s, Trump and Netanyahu operate from a foundation of similarity. Their alignment enables them to use the same playbook, even if the endgame does not always result in mutual advantage.
When examining Trump’s twenty point “peace plan,” which heavily favours Israel, or his reported request that the president of Israel pardon Netanyahu for war crimes (Reuters, 2025), it becomes clear that both leaders maintain tight control over their narratives. This makes it a challenge to assess how accurate mainstream media is in presenting the reality on the ground.
References
- Al Jazeera. (2024). Netanyahu rejects UN criticism as biased.
- BBC News. (2023). Trump indictment reactions and political rhetoric.
- Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993–1002.
- Haaretz. (2024). Netanyahu’s emergency powers and wartime governance.
- Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince (Q. Skinner, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1532)
- Pew Research Center. (2020). U.S. media polarization and the 2020 election.
- Reuters. (2025). Trump’s 20 point Middle East peace proposal and Israeli response.
- The Guardian. (2023). Israel’s Channel 14 and the rise of pro government media.
- U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Statement on Antifa and domestic terrorism.
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.
About the Author
J. André Faust explores the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society through a layered systems approach. His work focuses on tracing feedback loops, identifying hidden architectures of influence, and examining how narratives evolve within complex, interconnected environments. Guided by the principle that understanding requires both observation and revision, he works to illuminate how beliefs form, shift, and solidify within dynamic social systems.
