This week, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced their intentions to run for their respective party’s ticket for president.

Clinton, who has a long political career as a former first lady, New York Democratic senator, and secretary of state, is running in her second presidential campaign. Clinton’s last presidential campaign ended in defeat when she lost the Democratic Party’s nomination to current US President Barack Obama.

Rubio, a 43-year-old Cuban American, officially kicked off his campaign on Monday with an announcement in Miami. The junior senator has held his post since 2011 and has made quite a name for himself, adding a youthful fresh face to the Republican Party.

A major ally of Israel, the US plays a major role in the Jewish State’s ability to defend itself in an unstable region as well as pursue policies that further the interests of the country.

From peace negotiations with the Palestinians, the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran, or day-to-day security issues, the commander-in-chief of the US has a large responsibility in protecting Israel and ensuring its survival.

While it is notoriously known that Democrats and Republicans do not see eye to eye on many matters, how do Clinton and Rubio stack up when it comes to Israel?

Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Clinton is an ardent supporter of a two-state solution as the ultimate resolution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. She has stated that it is a “personal commitment of mine” to create an independent Palestinian state.

In December 2010, Clinton stated: “The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is finite and both sides must know exactly which parts belong to each. They must agree to a single line, drawn on a map, that divides Israel from Palestine.”

Clinton has argued that the “status quo is unsustainable” and the “only path to secure Israel’s future…is through a negotiated two-state solution.” Regarding Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, Clinton has called the moves “counterproductive” to peace efforts and “insulting” to the US.

While hoping for peace between the two sides, Rubio appears to be a bit more realistic based on facts on the ground. In an interview in March with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, the senator stated that while a two-state solution is “the ideal outcome, it’s also the least likely.”

In a speech to the Senate in March, Rubio said that “the conditions don’t exist” for the creation or a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.

“The conditions do not exist for a peace deal with people who teach their children that killing Jews is a glorious thing. The conditions for peace do not exist with a people, with a government, I should say, not a people. The people are victims of this government, of the Palestinian Authority, and not to mention Hamas, who teach people that killing Jews is a glorious thing, that there is no such thing as a Jewish people, that any methods of destroying them is valid, that pay them salaries and benefits.”

Iran

Surprisingly, despite the fact that Clinton took part in the very early stages of the Iran nuclear agreement, the former secretary of state echoes Netanyahu’s sentiments that “no deal” with Iran “is better than a bad deal.”

Rubio, an ardent critic of the nuclear framework agreement between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1, believes the president is being too soft and giving “dangerous concessions” to Iran. According to the senator, US leaders “appease our enemies, they betray our allies, and they weaken our military.”

The Iran deal, says Rubio, is a total “diplomatic failure.”

US-Israel Relations

Both Clinton and Rubio have called for a new and improved era of US-Israel relations.

In March, right after the re-election of Netanyahu, Clinton stated that relations between the two nations should return to “constructive footing” and should get back to “basic shared concerns and interests, including a two-state solution.”

In what has become one of Rubio’s most notorious pro-Israel speeches, Rubio slammed Obama on the Senate floor for his mistreatment of Israel, which he called a “historic and tragic mistake.”

“Israel represents everything we want that region of the world to be,” he stated. The senator has made repeated calls for improved relations between the US and Israel and has likened the Obama administration’s actions as throwing Israel under the bus.

Security of Israel

The two presidential candidates are committed to the security of the Jewish state.

In September 2010, while meeting with Netanyahu, Clinton said the US has an obligation to do all it can to “protect and defend the State of Israel and provide security to the Israeli people.” She condemned Palestinian terrorism and advocated for Israel’s right to defend itself.

For Clinton, “protecting Israel’s future is not simply a matter of policy for me, it’s personal.”

Rubio believes it is a “moral obligation” to defend the Jewish state. “The security, safety and future of Israel is in our national security as well as a moral obligation of every member of this body and us as a nation,” the senator said in March.

In one such instance, the senator has previously stated that it is time for the US to accept “the mantle of global leadership” by abandoning “dangerous concessions to Iran and its hostility to Israel.”

Taking this idea one step further, Rubio has been floating the idea of a special amendment to the Iran nuclear deal around Congress that seeks to force Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a condition to any final agreement.

LISTEN BELOW: What Would a Hillary Clinton Presidency Mean for Israel and the Jews?