The contrast between the outgoing administration and the two people who hope to succeed President Obama couldn’t have been greater yesterday with respect to one person: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. While Obama and Secretary of State Kerry seem determined to push Israel to the edge before they head into retirement, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seem eager to demonstrate they’ll be different. Should Israelis or U.S. voters believe any of it?

On Sunday, Haaretz published a report about a private meeting in New York in which Secretary of State John Kerry lambasted Israel and, according to diplomats present, “rais[ed] his voice” and urged the international community to “act” to force the Jewish state to change its policies. The upshot of the story is that Kerry seems to want the administration to use its last months in office to pass a United Nations Security Council resolution that would either recognize Palestinian independence or lay parameters for future talks. Such negotiations would essentially undercut Israel’s position by forcing it to agree to Palestinian demands before talks even began.

Yet the same day, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were paying court to Netanyahu and promising a very different atmosphere for Israel should either of them become president.

Whether under the influence of his Jewish son-in-law or out of eagerness to curry favor with pro-Israel voters, Trump went full Likud in his promises to Netanyahu. He reiterated his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and said that peace is not possible with the Palestinians until they “renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish state.” He also pledged to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the U.S. embassy there.

In her statement, Clinton paid similar tribute to the U.S.-Israel alliance but also indicated a significant possible difference with her successor Kerry. She said that a two-state solution could only be brought about by direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and specifically opposed “any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the UN Security Council.”

While it’s not clear if either Trump or Clinton will gain much by their meetings with Netanyahu, the prime minister came away a big winner, at least for the moment. The willingness of both candidates to pose as Netanyahu’s friends indicates that, at least for now, the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that is the foundation of the alliance remains intact. But what Netanyahu must ponder is not so much whether he can count on future support from either Trump or Clinton but what impact these pledges might have on a lame-duck Obama administration’s willingness to torch the alliance on its way out the door?

The really interesting dynamic here is whether, like Kerry, Obama is so angry at Israel that he’s willing to end his time in office by stabbing it in the back at the UN. Last week, former State Department staffer and veteran peace processer Dennis Ross predicted that if Trump were elected rather than Clinton, Obama might be more inclined to do something that would hamstring his successor and create pressure on Israel via a UN resolution that couldn’t be walked back by the next president. But assuming that Clinton means what she says about opposing UN intervention in the conflict, it’s not clear whether that will deter Obama or convince him to act against the Jewish state no matter who wins in November.

Netanyahu would do well not to completely trust either candidate. But considering that Obama came into office pledging to create more “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, Trump and Clinton’s statements both seem to portend at the very least a slight improvement on the last eight years regardless of the outcome of the election. If Kerry’s intemperate outburst about trying to rally the world to crack down on Israel is any indication, the problem remains of how to get through the next 116 days without the U.S. helping to pass the kind of resolution that will brand Israel as an outlaw state. Until then, Obama still has the power to create havoc in the Middle East, and there may be nothing that Trump, Clinton, or Netanyahu can do about it.