International relations first emerged during the rise of total war in the First World War. The war forced intellectuals to view international relations from a different perspective, and in order to secure peace, Woodrow Wilson, the US president at the time, used liberal ideology to shape a post-war order. This contributed to liberalism in international relations. Liberalism was considered idealistic because it was based on an optimistic view of human nature. However, soon after the war, idealism was challenged by bureaucratic realism. Thus, the debate continues between idealism and realism as to which is more likely to help explain and understand international relations. In my article I will argue that the two terms are mutually exclusive and that to properly understand and apply international relations requires a good mix of both. An idealistic view of international relations with an equal mix of realism will result in greater awareness of international relations on a global scale, which will help remove the need for war and domination of countries. I will argue this claim by showing that too idealistic a viewpoint will result in naive thinking and that too realistic a viewpoint will result in a distant world relationship. I will compare and contrast the scholarly works of Mordecai Roshwald and Jack Donnelly and their thoughts on realism and idealism in politics; Charles W. Kegley and his thoughts on realism and its challenges; and JA Hobson's view of idealism in international relations. I will then connect all the scientific works together and construct my own proposal and contribution to this topic of idealism and realism in international relations. Realism and idealism...middle of article......s we should study and understand both views carefully but end up eliminating realism, Kegley disagrees and believes that neither realism nor idealism can be considered correct from an individual point of view, and in order to ensure optimal vision and explanation in international relations, a good balance between the two is necessary. I agree with Donnelly and Kegley that a term is neither right nor wrong. I feel that realism and idealism need to be equally appreciated and studied in order to cope with the complex practice of world politics. In order to get the best aspects of both terms, I agree with Kegley that a good balance between the two is necessary. Idealism attempts to achieve a world government that unifies all nations and citizens; However, idealists can sometimes be very naive, seeking a false reality about the world around them and