Many important foreign policy topics went unexplored during the first debate of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign but perhaps most unusual was the lack of attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry gave the Jewish state - America's key Middle East ally - only one mention each during their 90-minute debate on Thursday night at the University of Miami.

And in both cases, the references came in the context of achieving peace in Iraq, not the conflict between Israel and Palestinians that roils the region with no end in sight.

"A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel," Bush said.

Later, defending his plan for handling Iraq, Kerry vowed: "I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror."

Jon Alterman, who heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the cursory reference reflects the fact that Israel is not a source of contention between the candidates.

But other analysts see a more worrisome trend, evidence that the United States is unable to have a serious national debate about policy toward its longtime, complicated ally.

Key constituency

American Jews are active participants in the U.S. political process, voting in large numbers and contributing generously to their favorite candidates.

This makes them an important constituency in any election but especially this year, when the contest looks close.

Democrats often benefit most from American-Jewish support but throughout his tenure Bush has staunchly backed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and thus makes a strong claim on the loyalty of American advocates of Israel.

Until Bush, U.S. presidents never really saw eye-to-eye with prime ministers from Israel's right-wing Likud Party.

Alterman said Bush "established a level of comfort and understanding with Sharon which John Kerry doesn't have and which it would be hard for Sharon to establish with Kerry," even though the Massachusetts senator is very pro-Israel.

Apart from asserting steadfast support for Israel, neither candidate has outlined how he might revive stalled negotiations to end the violence and establish a Palestinian state.

Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Thursday's debate "demonstrated the extreme difficulty in the United States of having a serious national debate on subject of strategy toward the Middle East."

Both Bush and Kerry stressed the importance of bringing peace to the wider region. Bush reiterated his vision of spreading democracy and Kerry talked of reaching out to the Muslim world.

"How can you do that if you ignore the role of Israel in making it so much more difficult to appeal to Muslim moderates," Lieven said.

"The question is whether after the election, Kerry or Bush may adopt a different strategy. ... If you refuse to discuss American terms of support for Israel, a huge part of the debate becomes empty or nonexistent," he said.

This weakens American discourse and undermines international faith in the U.S. system, Lieven said. It also hurts allies like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a stalwart anti-terror war ally, who this week told a party conference Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts would be a focus of his future diplomatic efforts, he said.