Shehbaz Sharif’s Effusive Praise for Trump at Gaza Summit Sparks Online Ridicule and “Bootlicker” Tag

—

by

Himanshu
in

At a recent high-profile summit in Egypt centered on the Gaza conflict, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif made headlines—not for diplomatic breakthroughs or proposals, but for his extraordinary praise directed at former US President Donald Trump. His remarks, delivered in a five-minute address, lauded Trump as a “man of peace” and even suggested he was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

While Trump appeared visibly amused and responded with a grin, the internet responded sharply. Social media users from Pakistan and beyond dubbed Sharif a “bootlicker,” mocking the excessive flattery and accusing him of politicizing the summit. India Today

In this article, we break down what Sharif said, how Trump reacted, the backlash online, and what this episode reveals about diplomacy, image, and political strategy in 2025.

What Shehbaz Sharif Said — and Why It Stood Out

During his speech, Sharif offered a string of superlatives for Trump:

  • He called the day “one of the greatest in contemporary history,” claiming peace had been achieved through Trump’s “untiring efforts.”
  • He stated that Trump had prevented a potential nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan—arguably one of the boldest claims made.
  • Sharif referred to Trump as the “most genuine and most wonderful candidate” for the Nobel Peace Prize.

When Trump invited him to “say what you said the other day,” Sharif obliged with enthusiasm, embracing his role as a vocal supporter onstage. India Today

While grand diplomatic language isn’t unusual at summits, Sharif’s tone and intensity stood out as unusually effusive—even for international politics.

Trump’s Reaction and the Onstage Moment

In response to Sharif’s praise, Trump appeared amused and somewhat surprised. He replied with a grin, saying: “Wow! I didn’t expect that. Let’s go home — there’s nothing more I have to say.” India Today

That short statement and gesture created a striking contrast: Sharif in full-throated praise, and Trump seeming bemused by the spectacle. The optics generated immediate buzz, compounding the social media reaction.

The Backlash: “Bootlicker” Becomes the Dominant Label

Once Sharif’s speech spread online, the response was swift and sharp. Social media users, analysts, and political commentators criticized the speech as overly sycophantic and embarrassing:

  • One user commented: “Why are Pakistani politicians such lucchas and bootlickers? Shameless man Shehbaz Sharif… using the Palestinian struggle to score brownie points.” India Today
  • A historian remarked that Sharif’s constant flattery was “a source of embarrassment for Pakistanis across the world.”
  • Columnists and observers pointed out that if there were a “Nobel Prize for bootlicking,” Sharif would be a top contender.
  • Some voices in Pakistan, including political rivals, publicly disavowed the behavior, saying the speech did not represent them or their expectations from leadership.

In short: while Sharif may have gained momentary attention or favor with Trump, he lost considerable respect among many netizens and critics. India Today

Why This Episode Matters: Political Symbolism & Risks

1. Diplomatic Messaging vs. Domestic Image

Leaders often walk tightropes between international statesmanship and domestic perception. Sharif’s speech may have been calculated to appeal on a global stage, but domestically it risked appearing weak, opportunistic, or overly deferential—especially in nationalist or volatile political environments.

2. Summits Are Stages

International summits are not just forums for policy; they’re media stages. Every word, facial expression, and interaction is magnified. In this case, the optics overshadowed policy, with Trump’s relaxed smile and the audience’s reaction becoming the headline.

3. Backfire Potential

While flattery can build goodwill, overdoing it can backfire, especially in the age of social media. Messaging that seems insincere or self-serving can result in reputational damage, ridicule, or loss of credibility.

4. Internal Political Pressure

Criticism from domestic political opponents and observers raised uncomfortable questions: Did Sharif act alone? Was this message consistent with party positions? By publicly distancing, rivals suggested the speech had cost political capital.

5. Media Narratives & Historical Memory

This moment will likely be referenced in analyses of Sharif’s leadership and diplomatic strategy going forward. It may be used as a case study in media narratives about image management, foreign alignment, and public perception in South Asia.

How This Episode Compares to Historical Political Gaffes

Political leaders occasionally step into moments that later become infamous. Some parallels:

  • Overly personalized praise of a powerful figure, risking appearing sycophantic.
  • Attempting to harness a global moment (summit, award, event) to portray oneself as a major actor—even if the foundation is weak.
  • Misjudging the tone or balance of rhetoric, turning serious forums into caricatures.

In many instances, such gestures provoke lasting mockery, overshadowing policy debates and creating lasting media impressions that stick longer than the original intent.

What Could Sharif Have Done Differently?

  1. Balance Praise with Substance
    Instead of declamatory praise, Sharif might have grounded his speech in concrete proposals, shared goals, or cautious diplomacy.
  2. Tone It Moderately
    A measured, respectful tone is less likely to attract negative attention than unchecked admiration.
  3. Anticipate Political Fallout
    Given today’s hyperconnected social media environment, such remarks should be vetted against how they might be received domestically and internationally.
  4. Use Diplomacy, Not Performance
    Emphasizing cooperation, pragmatism, and mutual goals typically resonates better than performance-style rhetoric.

Final Thoughts

Shehbaz Sharif’s performance at the Gaza summit is a potent reminder that in diplomacy, words carry outsized weight. A speech meant to flatter can become fodder for ridicule in minutes.

In 2025’s media landscape, where comment and backlash travel at lightning speed, statesmen must carefully calibrate their messaging. Sharif’s gambit may have aimed to earn favor, but it also exposed vulnerabilities—especially in the eyes of observers who prize dignity, restraint, and clarity over grandiose rhetoric.

Whether this episode becomes a footnote or a defining moment in Sharif’s tenure depends on how he and his advisers respond going forward.