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.)