The preferred policy of the CONSERVATIVES would be to back up Israel in doing whatever it wants to do based on the laws of power politics. War would not be out of the question as long as Israel maintains its political and economic position with relation to other states, assuming that the position of the Unites States cannot be directly affected internationally by such a move. This view deems the use of military force justified to control "international security", and ultimately to protect its own interests in mercantilism. This strategy -according to the conservative perspective- appears to be more effective than trying to eliminate the causes of disorder. Pressuring Israel, for example, would threaten the status quo domestically, which would go against their interests with regards to the powerful pro-Israeli lobby.
The LIBERAL perspective may recognize the need for the evolution of the status quo, because realistically it would be difficult to maintain anyway. This is due to the fact that it is a multilateral issue which cannot be controlled solely by the US. Diplomatically, if the US makes responsible decisions now, it statnds to gain more from the outcome. An unstable Middle East means a shaky world economy and less gains for the United States. Liberals also call for freedom, but this may not be reason enough for them to act upon such an ideology, but it can be used as a guise for other interests, namely economic. The possibility of war is a pressing issue, and one that the liberals would like to avoid, through international organizatoins such as the United Nations. The US also has legal obligations for intervention because its credibility is at stake as a mediator if nothing else. It is important to keep the peace process on track because instability could be detrimental to the world economy, and could promote threats to "democracy".
The REVOLUTIONARY perspective bases its views on moral obligations and the need for justice. There can be no long term stability without justice. The fact that the US signed as a guarantor to the peace process and to be an impartial mediator sets it up to protect justice. The current status-quo is not fertile ground for growing a just peace, since the powerful parties seem to be above the law. Parties need to comply with UN resolutions and abide by decisions that have already been signed in order to achieve a just peace. Human rights and international law violations must cease if there is going to be any progress towards a lasting peace.