The Washington Post gauges whether statements by President Bush regarding an Israeli-Palestinian settlement represent a shift in U.S. policy (1.) The Associated Press lays out U.S. expectations regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and a peace deal as articulated by President Bush during his visit (3.) The New York Times reports on deep Palestinian public skepticism regarding the Bush visit and its ability to achieve progress (4.) In Israel Policy Forum, MJ Rosenberg stresses the importance of concrete steps on the ground in order to transform Presidential rhetoric on Israel-Palestine to reality (5.) The Jewish Telegraphic Agency parses the Bush summary of his Israel-Palestine during his visit for statements of substance regarding negotiations and a final settlement (7.) A San Francisco Chronicle editorial compliments President Bush on the clarity of his statements on Israel-Palestine during his visit and urges him keep up a sustained engagement (8.) The Independent analyzes the tougher-than-usual language employed by President Bush towards both the Israelis and Palestinians during his visit, particularly regarding the Israeli occupation (10.) The Economist (UK) is skeptical that President Bush can realize his two-state vision by the end of his presidency, instead setting a realistic goal of bringing peace closer and making it easier for the next administration to achieve (12.) A Guardian (UK) comment by Jonathan Steele is critical and skeptical of President Bush's ability and desire to effect Israeli-Palestinian peace (14.) Al JAzeera (Qatar) reviews the reaction of press across the Arab world to the Bush Mideast visit (16.) In Haaretz (Israel) Bradley Burston lays out how the Gaza disengagement initiated by former Israeli PM Sharon was meant to greatly diminish Palestinian statehood prospects (18.)