John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
Published on September 24, 2025 [True Divine Wisdom YouTube channel]
* * *
I don’t believe a two-state solution is a realistic possibility. Certainly after what happened on October 7th and what has subsequently happened, there’s not going to be a two-state solution. What the Israelis are determined to do is create a greater Israel. And that greater Israel includes Gaza, the West Bank, and what we used to call Green Line Israel. Israel as it existed before the 1967 war. The problem that the Israelis face is that there are approximately 7.3 million Israeli Jews in greater Israel and there are approximately 7.3 million Palestinians inside of greater Israel. And that creates huge problems for Israel because they can’t have a meaningful democracy when they’re probably slightly more Palestinians than Israeli Jews. And the Israeli government is unwilling to go to a two-state solution regardless of what happened on October 7th. But certainly after October 7th, that’s not going to happen.
I have long been a proponent of a two-state solution, but I have long argued that it was no longer a viable alternative because I thought the Israelis were not interested after Camp David in 2000 in a two-state solution. But now I think after what’s happened it’s almost impossible to conceive of Israel creating a Palestinian state that is right next door. I think given what’s happened on October 7th, relations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, you know, we’re talking about both sides here. That’s what you’re getting at have been poisoned to the point where a two-state solution is no longer viable. I think what you’re going to end up with is more of the same which is a greater Israel that is an apartheid state.
These are two separate issues here. The substack piece that you started with piece that focuses just on Israel’s policy in Gaza and is a critique of its behavior on moral grounds. And the question of what happens with regard to relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinians is another matter. And on that front I don’t see any viable solution because in theory there is only one viable solution which is to give the Palestinians a state of their own. This crisis or this conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians can only be solved politically. It can’t be solved with military force. And the political solution theoretically that works, the only political solution that works theoretically is a two-state solution. But as you and I discussed a few minutes ago, that train has left the station. So, we’re going to continue the status quo, which is a greater Israel that is an apartheid state. And I know it’s controversial to refer to Israel as an apartheid state, but Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Betelum, which is the leading human rights organization inside of Israel. All three of these organizations have produced major reports that make it clear that Israel is an apartheid state. and they in fact use that language. And by the way, I follow the Israeli press very closely and it’s common place for Israeli elites to refer to Israel as an apartheid state. So this is the future that we’re dealing with and it’s not going to be pretty moving forward.
[Netanyahu, on Sept. 9, 2025] And I welcome today the Secretary of State Marco Rubio who understands that this is the foundation of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. It is being challenged today. It’s being challenged by a growing Islamist force. It’s being challenged by the unity of the Islamist with the ultra-left. They both deny our patrimony. They both deny our heritage and they are putting all the pressure on European leaders and others who weak kneed are suggesting that we divide Jerusalem. They’re suggesting that we plant a Palestinian state committed to our destruction right here. And we say any unilateral action can be met with unilateral action. This is our city. It is forever our city. It will never be divided again and there will be no Palestinian state.
The United States has a special relationship with Israel that has no parallel in modern history. The United States supports Israel almost no matter what it does. It it’s unconditional support. It’s truly remarkable. And all sorts of people have said that there is no equivalent relationship between any two countries in recorded history. So the question is “what is driving this special relationship? What has caused it?” And one could argue that it’s in America’s strategic interest. One could argue that it’s in America’s moral interest. From an ethical or moral point of view, it makes sense for us to provide Israel with unconditional support. And in fact, what’s going on here is that the Israel lobby, which is an extremely powerful interest group in the United States, works over time to push American foreign policy in ways that support Israel at every turn.
I would like us to treat Israel like a normal country. And when Israel does things that are in our interest, we should back them. And when they don’t, we should not back them. In fact, we should go to great lengths to get them to change their behavior. And I don’t think it’s in our interest for the Israelis to maintain the occupation. I hope you understand that since at least President Carter’s time in office, the United States has pushed forcefully for a two-state solution. Every American president since Jimmy Carter, and including Jimmy Carter, has been in favor of a two-state solution. But the Israelis have not played ball with us. And the principal reason they’ve been able to get away with largely ignoring our pressure is because of the Israel lobby here in the United States. No president is willing to really coerce Israel in a meaningful way or has been able to coerce Israel in a meaningful way to accept a two-state solution because the political costs would be too great. And that’s because the Israel lobby is so powerful.
This is a case where you have a greater Israel and Hamas is a group that operates inside of greater Israel and this is a resistance movement. That’s what’s going on here. This is not interstate relations. Realism doesn’t have a lot to say about relations between Hamas and Israel. You could argue that creating a Palestinian state and thinking about relations between a Palestinian state and Israel would bring realpolitik onto the table because then you’d have two states and you’d have interstate relations. But this is not a case of interstate relations. Hamas is not a state. You said before that, you know, one could argue that Israel is facing an existential threat. This is not a serious argument. Do you really believe that Hamas is an existential threat to Israel? Israel is a remarkably powerful state. In my opinion, it is militarily the most powerful state in the region. It is the only state that has nuclear weapons. Hamas doesn’t even have a state, right? It occupies Gaza, which is part of greater Israel. It’s remarkably weak.
This is the kind of threat inflation that you get in the West in places like Britain and places like the United States that are all designed to justify what Israel is doing. Right? if they’re facing an existential threat, if this is the second coming of the Third Reich, if Hamas fighters are the new Nazis, then, you know, you can make an argument that what you’re doing here is you’re killing large numbers of Palestinians to avoid another holocaust. That’s not what’s going on here. Hamas is not the Third Reich. They’re not an existential threat. That’s not a problem. I mean, what country is going to invade Israel and threaten its survival? There’s no country Jordan? I don’t think so. Egypt? I don’t think so. Syria? Iraq? I don’t think so. Lebanon? No. Is there a problem with Hezbollah? No. Right. I mean, Hezbollah has lots of rockets and missiles, and it could do huge amounts of damage inside Israel if it launched those approximately 150,000 rockets and missiles. There’s no question about that. But Hezbollah does not have the capability to invade Israel and conquer any territory and hold on to it. I mean, it’s not a serious argument. Nor does Hamas have that capability. To the extent that Israel might face an existential threat in the future, that would be true if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, right? Because Iran and Israel obviously have hostile relations, bitter relations, and one could tell a story about how a conflict between the two of them escalated to the nuclear level. Of course, again, this assumes that Iran has nuclear weapons, but Iran is not a military threat to invade Israel and conquer Israel.
And again, you don’t want to forget that Israel has nuclear weapons. They are the ultimate deterrent. I’ve yet to see a country that has nuclear weapons disappear from the face of the earth. And I don’t think that Israel is going to be the first country that fills the bill on that score. It’s just not going to happen.
I’m not criticizing the Israelis for responding to what Hamas did on October 7th. Of course, the Israelis were going to respond. What I’m criticizing is how they responded. And my argument is that it made no sense militarily to launch a campaign where they’re basically massacring huge numbers of Palestinians and starving Palestinians. There’s no military utility to this. I think there’s no question that the Israelis from their perspective had to respond to what Hamas did on October 7th, but I don’t think that they had to respond the way they have responded. And I think that their response could have been much more selective and little emphasis should have been placed on punishing the civilian population. The emphasis should have been on going after Hamas, not going to great lengths to punish the Palestinian population in ways that we are watching now. There’s no question that Hamas is integrated in all sorts of ways into the civilian population in Gaza. How could it be otherwise? I mean, got Hamas is not going to build military bases far away from the civilian population so that they present the Israelis with a big fat target. What they have done is they have built tunnels underneath the ground all over Gaza, which is a way of protecting themselves from Israeli bombing campaigns. It makes perfect sense from their point of view, but in doing that, there’s no way they’re not going to be bound up with the local population.
