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.)