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.)