Some reflections on the recent media appearances of Frédéric Martel

Frédéric Martel has just published a book entitled Occidents – Enquête sur nos ennemis, and the very least that can be said is that it has benefited from extensive promotion, since its author has appeared or been heard across countless media outlets in recent weeks. Curiosity quickly arises while watching the 13 April episode of Quotidien hosted by Yann Barthès, when the author explains in considerable detail that he took part in a meeting gathering all the political and military leaders of Hezbollah in the fourth basement level of a secure building located in the southern suburbs of Beirut[1]. Reading the transcript of the geopolitical podcast published by L’Express on 16 April raises even more questions when Frédéric Martel explains that he “infiltrated Hezbollah networks”.

Anyone with an interest in the Middle East knows that Hezbollah is one of the most compartmentalised organisations in the region, and the events of recent years have shown that only Israeli intelligence agents succeeded in penetrating the organisation, with the formidable effectiveness we are familiar with. Nevertheless, Hezbollah’s communication policy is well known, regularly inviting journalists, researchers and observers to briefing meetings, and Frédéric Martel may very well have taken part within that framework. Yet this does not mean that all Hezbollah’s political and military leaders were gathered in the same place – principles of clandestinity, compartmentalisation and security oblige – nor that one can legitimately claim to have “infiltrated” the organisation. Words matter.

Once the surprise has passed, countless questions arise in light of Frédéric Martel’s interventions. As he repeatedly states, his objective is to explain the logic of all those who claim to be fighting against the West. We shall return to the use of the plural in the title of his book. At first glance, the method appears simple, yet it is marked by a binary line of reasoning whose intellectual rigour is open to question. The good, defenders and embodiments of the liberal system, versus the bad, dictators or illiberals. The author thus places political leaders and systems whose origins, histories and dynamics are radically different into the same category, even though they cannot simply be superimposed for the purposes of an empirical demonstration. Social classes and the economic interests they defend, which nevertheless appear decisive for understanding their logic, are never mentioned. Who can seriously consider that the policies defended by Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Viktor Orbán or Hassan Nasrallah are reducible to one another?

For the author, the term “West” is “a construct brandished by our adversaries in order to denounce us”. In his view, it is a shared hatred of the West that constitutes the common denominator linking all these political leaders. Moreover, he himself does not define himself as Western, but above all as European, and considers that the West may perhaps be a metaphor, a caricature rather than a reality. A myth used by its enemies.

Very well. He therefore admits that the term “West” is not, in this instance, linked to geography, but fails to understand that it more fundamentally embodies a strategic and military alliance, as well as political systems established in order to defend the dominant mode of economic production.

Frédéric Martel’s reasoning refers back to what he considers the fundamental question of the values supposedly embodied by liberal democracies. Simplism, however, rarely sits comfortably with history as it exists, rather than as one might wish it to be. Elevating the defence of democratic values to the cardinal principle of the convictions that appear to inspire the author is an attractive and respectable axiom. Yet if one follows this logic through to its conclusion, one must admit that “democratic states” embody principles of variable geometry. The history of the cruelties of colonisation – the famous “white man’s burden” developed by Rudyard Kipling – amply demonstrates this, and examples abound. How else can one explain the multiple coups organised by supposedly respectable democracies (Iran 1953, Chile 1973, etc.), or justify the wars undertaken and waged by those same imperialist states in contempt of international law? These few historical reminders are far from exhaustive, since examples proliferate of democratic states willing to employ methods wholly opposed to the values they claim to defend.

Yet such situations are not confined to history, current events remind us of them daily. Anyone can observe the double standards characterising the policies of Western states in their respective treatment of the war in Ukraine and the ongoing genocide in Gaza Strip. In the latter case, the silence is deafening and concrete initiatives aimed at putting an end to the planned massacre are almost non-existent… Evidently, the life of a Palestinian is worth far less than that of a Ukrainian.

No, the analysis of the international situation clearly does not depend upon generous ideas which are, in this case, singularly disembodied and therefore largely ineffective. For Frédéric Martel, mistrust and hostility towards the West are supposedly explained by the fact that the West has become synonymous with democracy, and therefore hatred directed against it “represents above all a hatred of democracy”[2]. What states of the Global South conceive is not hatred towards the West, but rather a justified distrust regarding the propensity of Western leaders to defend principles only when they correspond to their well-understood material interests. Under such circumstances, how could leaders of the South spontaneously and wholeheartedly embrace principles that have so often been violated?

Nevertheless, nothing justifies hypothetical support for authoritarian or dictatorial regimes that oppress the peoples of numerous countries in the Global South, and no progressive can exempt themselves from the necessary criticisms directed at them. The trap in this regard would be to fall into a sort of return to Cold War campism, this time no longer aligned with the Soviet Union, but rather expressed as direct or indirect support for regimes placed under pressure by the United States. As Gilbert Achcar describes it: “In other words, there was a shift from the logic of ‘The enemy of my friend (the USSR) is my enemy’ to the logic of ‘The enemy of my enemy (the United States) is my friend’.” This line of reasoning is no more effective, because it too is binary.

The counterpart to this position is an “inverted campism” dictated by Western powers, which constitutes the foundation of Frédéric Martel’s thesis. A divide between “democracies” and “authoritarian regimes”, translated into terms of confrontation between “liberal” and “illiberal” countries, the former supposedly promoting a world of peace, rights, freedoms and universal values, the latter a world of authoritarianism and brute force. These divisions pursue an ideological and strategic objective: to compel us to choose our camp according to a simplistic, moralising, instrumentalised and singularly artificial interpretative framework. Yet in the field of international relations, supporters of progressive transformation and a break with the capitalist system cannot reason in campist terms of “friends/enemies”[3].

Frédéric Martel’s reflections are developed in defence of occidentalism, with which part of the so-called political and media elites have been spoon-fed for decades and which they now observe with horror as the ground disappears beneath their feet. Not only are the states of the Global South, in all their diversity, asserting their right to decide for themselves without further submitting to the demands of Western states, but the country that until now embodied occidentalism for its admirers is itself methodically undermining the foundations upon which their domination was built. The policy implemented by Donald Trump is probably not a brief parenthesis and is contributing to the reconfiguration of international relations. Through his unbearable arrogance, he is helping to weaken the West and its supposed values so dear to Frédéric Martel. Beyond the American case, we are indeed witnessing a proliferation and strengthening of authoritarian regimes across the world seeking, in their own ways, to contain the effects of the generalised crisis affecting the international system.

Thus, when asked whether Israel is the forward outpost of the West, as claimed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Frédéric Martel, noting the dominance of the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalists there, feigns uncertainty and explains that “this raises the question of whether Israel belongs to the Western countries, let us say to the liberal democracies”. The formula is striking. All questioning is legitimate, but some questions nonetheless appear superfluous, and the syndrome of selective indignation seems indeed to have affected our author. He also explains, regarding Lebanon, that one solution is necessary in order to achieve peace: the country must dismantle Hezbollah and recognise Israel. He then adds, without batting an eyelid: “Egypt and Jordan did it. There have been no wars with those two countries for a long time.” For Frédéric Martel, the matter is settled. This is to misunderstand the centrality of the Palestinian question, without the resolution of which it is futile to hope for stabilisation in the region. Unless he considers the matter now null and void, and believes that it would ultimately suffice merely to show goodwill in order to restore peace, as if by magic wand. Such a position is, at the very least, troubling insofar as it echoes the positions defended by the Israeli establishment.

Alternatives must certainly be constructed in order to confront the challenges of a world in systemic crisis. To do so, one must avoid fighting the wrong battles and above all rely upon the social and political forms of resistance that exist across a great many countries.

---

[1] From 16’59

[2] Frédéric Martel, Occidents – Enquête sur nos ennemis, Paris, Plon, 2026, p. 587.

[3] On this subject, see Didier Billion et Christophe Ventura, Désoccidentalisation – Repenser l’ordre du monde, Marseille, Agone, 2023.