The New York Times examines the changing attitudes towards Syria by the U.S. in light of Syrian attendance at Annapolis (1.) A Forward editorial draws hope for the future from the Annapolis meeting (3.) Reuters looks at the post-Annapolis challenges facing Palestinian president Abbas in terms of the question of Hamas (5.) The Guardian reports on frank statements by Israeli PM Olmert linking Israel's future survival with the two-state solution (8.) An Economist (UK) editorial is critical of President Bush for not offering more detail of his vision for a Palestinian state at Annapolis (9.) A Daily Star (Lebanon) opinion by Brandeis University visiting senior fellow and Palestinian economist Mohammed Samhouri stresses the importance of movement on the political front in facilitating Palestinian economic and development reform (11.) A Khaleej Times (UAE) opinion by Claude Salhani emphasizes the need for serious U.S. engagement and for both Israelis and Palestinians to compromise if Annapolis will result in success (12.) An Asharq Alawsat (pan Arab) opinion by editor-in-chief Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed argues that current peacemaking efforts hinge on President Bush (13.) A Haaretz (Israel) editorial draws a link between the Israeli settlement project and increasing parallels between Israel and South African apartheid (14.) In a Jerusalem Post (Israel) opinion, Israeli government minister Ami Ayalon sees the significance of Annapolis as being a critical juncture between the diminishing or strengthening of Hamas (16.)

The New York Times provides a wrap-up of the re-launched peace process resulting from the Annapolis meeting (1.) A Boston Globe opinion by ATFP executive director Rafi Dajani identifies the achievements at Annapolis that lay the groundwork towards progress in achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace (3.) The Washington Post examines skeptical Mideast reaction to the Annapolis talks (5.) The Christian Science Monitor looks at how different observers on Israel-Palestine stresses the importance of an active U.S. arbitration role in a future negotiation process (7.) A Forward opinion by New America and Century Foundation senior fellow Daniel Levy urges Israel to reciprocate to the Arab consensus over peace based on an end to the Israeli occupation begun in 1967 (9.) McClatchy newspapers reports on how experience is tempering Israeli and Palestinian public reaction to Annapolis (10.) A Guardian (UK) editorial finds that Annapolis has changed the environment of Arab-Israeli peacemaking in significant ways (12.) A Gulf News (UAE) opinion by George Hishmeh analyzes the Syrian attendance at Annapolis and its impact on the Lebanese presidential election crisis (14.) In a Haaretz (Israel) interview, Israeli PM Olmert equates the demise of the two-state solution with Israel's future existence (16.) Also in Haaretz, an opinion by Aluf Benn looks at why the American role in Arab-Israeli peacemaking as essential (17.)

A New York Times editorial stresses the importance of serious and sustained U.S. involvement if Mideast peace-making has any chance of success (1.) The Washington Post examines how the wide international and Arab participation at the Annapolis meeting and their commitment to support re-launched negotiations is an important achievement (2.) Also in the Post, an opinion by David Ignatius analyzes the text of the joint understanding to flesh out the achievements and failures of the meeting (3.) The CSIS Mideast Program's deputy director Haim Malka suggests some practical post-Annapolis steps to achieve a peace agreement (5.) The Los Angeles Times looks at how hardening public attitudes and weak leaders stand as challenges to peace prospects (6.) A Boston Globe editorial emphasizes the future 'bridging' role of the U.S. in peace negotiations (8.) The Jewish Telegraphic Agency identifies the new U.S. role as the sole arbiter of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as the major achievement of Annapolis (11.) BBC (UK) examines how the hard work following the Annapolis meeting has yet to begin (13.) A Daily Star (Lebanon) opinion by Princeton university visiting professor Daoud Kuttab urges that the U.S. develop a 'Plan B' in case post-Annapolis talks fail (15.) An Asharq Alawsat opinion by editor-in-chief Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed looks at how Syria's attendance at Annapolis contributed positively to intra-Mideast relations (16.) Haaretz (Israel) looks at how the Palestinians achieved two of three of their goals for the joint understanding (19.)

The Washington Post examines the challenges facing President Bush as he frames the Annapolis meeting in the context of a battle for the future of the Middle East against extremist forces (2.) An Orlando Sentinel opinion by ATFP executive director Rafi Dajani identifies realistic and achievable objectives for the Annapolis meeting in the context of establishing a Palestinian state (3.) McClatchy Newspapers analyzes the four main issues of Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security dividing Israelis and Palestinians (5.) In the New York Review of Books, senior Council on Foreign Relations fellow Henry Siegman identifies Israeli reluctance to define the contours of a future Palestinian state as the main obstacle to peace and warns of the consequences of a failure at Annapolis (6.) A Financial Times (UK) opinion by Gideon Rachman weights the opportunities and challenges for the Annapolis meeting and beyond while stressing the critical role of the U.S. in a future settlement (9.) A Telegraph (UK) opinion by Tim Butcher stresses the importance of political will by Israelis, Palestinians and the U.S. in reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace the parameters of which are well known (11.) A Gulf News (UAE) opinion by Linda Heard addresses the implications of a future shift in Israel's demography on the country's future (13.) In Haaretz (Israel). Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner touches on the three main points of the just-issued Annapolis 'joint declaration' (14.)

The New York Times analyzes how resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became a top priority for Secretary of State Rice (1.) Also in the Times, an opinion by Roger Cohen urges the Bush administration and Israel to heed the vision of Palestinian PM Fayyad for coexistence and peace with Israel (2.) A Washington Post editorial examines the political realities that make success at Annapolis a remote proposition (4.) The Associated Press outlines the role of President Bush in this week's Annapolis meeting (6), while the Independent (UK) stresses the importance of the president throwing his full weight behind the meeting (13.) A Christian Science Monitor editorial looks at how the Annapolis meeting represents a chance for moderate forces in the Middle East to address rising forces of extremism and radicalism in the region (7.) A Los Angeles Times opinion by former Mideast negotiator Aaron Miller identifies what is needed to turn Annapolis into an event that sets into motion a serious Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking process culminating in Palestinian statehood (9.) A Financial Times (UK) editorial lays out 3 elements to making the Annapolis meeting a success (11.) The Times (UK) looks at how Hamas rule in Gaza is causing increasing Palestinian anger as the movement becomes more isolated (14.) A Daily Star (Lebanon) editorial commends the Bush administration for having reached the conclusion that it is worth taking the risks of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking (16.) A Haaretz (Israel) opinion by Akiva Eldar identifies the importance of the American role at and post Annapolis as that of bridging the two sides, establishing a timeline for completing negotiations and establishing an implementation mechanism (17.)

The Associated Press looks at increasing signs of serious Arab ministerial-level participation at the Annapolis meeting (2.) A Washington Post opinion by former Israeli justice minister and Israeli Knesset member Yossi Beilin lays out the case why Israel should urgently seek a ceasefire with Hamas (3.) A Forward opinion by Leonard Fein argues that a failure at Annapolis would have serious ramifications for Israel (5.) The Independent (UK) reports on statements by a senior UN official that the continuing siege of Gaza is counterproductive and breeding extremism (7.) A Financial Times (UK) opinion by senior New America Foundation fellow Anatol Lieven connects the dots between for American interests between addressing Islamist radicalism and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (8.) The Guardian (UK) looks at Saudi deliberations leading to their announcement today that their foreign minister will attend the Annapolis meeting (10.) A Haaretz (Israel) opinion by Americans For Peace Now communcations director Noam Shelef exposes the agenda of certain Jewish-American organizations attempting to prevent Israeli government negotiations over Jerusalem (11.) An Arab News (Saudi Arabia) opinion by Walid Awad of the Fatah Central Media Commission identifies the parties attempting to undermine the Annapolis meeting in the face of growing international realization of the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (14.)

The LA Times looks at continuing uncertainty regarding the Annapolis meeting after the issuing of invitations by the U.S. (2.) Angus Reid Global Monitor reviews the results of the latest survey of Palestinian public opinion by the West Bank An-Najah university, revealing a high degree of support for the Abbas/Fayyad government (4.) The Forward reports on increasing pressure on Israel by the U.S. to effect a serious settlement freeze (7.) An IHT opinion by former U.S. ambassador Kurtzer and USIP fellow Lasensky offer tips to maximize chances of success for the Annapolis meeting (9.) Inter Press Service looks at the opposition to the Annapolis meeting coming from neocon hawks in the U.S. associated with Israel's Likud (10.) The Independent (UK) reports on a Palestinian document prepared for the December Paris donors conference that serves as a blueprint for statehood and outlines projected security, fiscal and political reforms (11.) BBC (UK) analyzes the risks and possibilities for Israeli-Palestinian peace associated with the Annapolis meeting (12.) A Daily Star (Lebanon) opinion by Rami Khouri urges Arab participants at Annapolis to seize the initiative and use the Annapolis meeting to present their issues with clarity and conviction (16.) A Haaretz (Israel) opinion by Akiva Eldar analyzes the obstructionist elements to the Annapolis meeting and to negotiations with the Palestinians (17.)

The Washington Times looks at how Israeli leaders are reformulating the 'two-state' language to send out a political message before the Annapolis meeting regarding the Palestinian refugees and the nature of the Israeli state (2.) The Washington Post weighs the chances that the limited Palestinian prisoner release and the partial Israeli settlement freeze announcements will induce key Arab states to commit to attending the Annapolis meeting (4.) The Christian Science Monitor reports on how the breakdown of law and order in the occupied territories has reflected on the phenomenon of 'honor' killings (6.) The Forward looks at the division of labor over security in Nablus between the Palestinian police and the Israeli army (8.) A Jewish Telegraphic Agency opinion by Americans For Peace Now spokesperson Ori Nir ponders the absence of mainstream organized Jewish american support for the Annapolis meeting and Israeli-Palestinian peace (9.) The Independent (UK) examines continuing efforts to hammer out a joint Israeli-Palestinian declaration at Annapolis in the face of serious differences over the language (11.) BBC (UK) examines the Annapolis meeting will meet the fate of past failed meetings (13.) In BitterLemons (Israel/Palestine) former Palestinian minister of planning Ghassan Khatib is critical to the reference to the Roadmap regarding the Annapolis meeting, in light of the failure of both parties in the past to implement the agreement's responsibilities (15.) In his Haaretz (Israel) blog, Shmuel Rosner takes a close look at the results of the ADL survey on American attitudes to Israelis and Palestinians (16.)

The New York Times examines the approach by the U.S. in securing key Arab participation at the Annapolis meeting and achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by the end of the Bush administration (2.) Also in the Times, an opinion by Roger Cohen lists the many challenges facing the Annapolis meeting (3.) The Washington Post analyzes the reasons behind the delay in the U.S. issuing official negotiations to the meeting next week (4.) The Associated Press reports on American efforts to secure a comprehensive Israeli settlement freeze in the occupied West Bank (6.) The American Prospect profiles leading Palestinian non-violence advocate Reverend Naim Ateek (8.) In an interview with the Guardian (UK), Palestinian university president Sari Nusseibeh explains why a change of focus at Annapolis could lead to success in peace negotiations (10.) A Haaretz (Israel) opinion by Gideon Levy examines how the Israeli settlement enterprise on occupied Palestinian territories has prevented any chance for peace (12.) A Daily Star (Lebanon) opinion by Rami Khouri is critical of policies meant to sow further Palestinian discord by encouraging a Fatah-Hamas confrontation (14.)

The New York Times examines the tougher line Palestinian president Abbas has been taking against Hamas (1.) Israel Policy Forum analyzes how the Palestinian West Bank/Gaza political division threatens Israel's security and Palestinian statehood prospects (3.) A Financial Times (UK) opinion by Philip Stevens is skeptical of the Annapolis meeting due to its focus (4.)The Independent (UK) looks at how Israeli border closures have impacted the Palestinian strawberry crop and its export out of Gaza (6.) A Guardian (UK) comment by Jonathan Steele examines how the justice of the Palestinian cause has endured despite the failure to-date of achieving statehood (7.) An Asharq Alawsat (pan Arab) opinion by editor-in-chief Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed takes Hamas to task for its rule in Gaza and its violence against fellow Palestinians (9.) A Haaretz (Israel) opinion by Danny Rubinstein documents the disintegration of the Palestinian national movement (11.) Also in Haaretz, an opinion by Yonatan Touval suggests that the text of an invitation letter to the Annapolis meeting include reference to borders, refugees and Jerusalem (12.)