Chinese Envoy Praises US for ‘Good Faith' Trade Negotiations
'The US has shown a lot of good faith and patience in its negotiations with China,' Ambassador Cao Zhongming told reporters Wednesday in the city-state. 'I believe in three months' time, we can do a lot of things together.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
The Middle East Israel-Hamas war UK Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
The Middle East Israel-Hamas war UK Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wolters Kluwer's (AMS:WKL) Dividend Will Be €0.93
Wolters Kluwer N.V. (AMS:WKL) has announced that it will pay a dividend of €0.93 per share on the 18th of September. Despite this raise, the dividend yield of 1.8% is only a modest boost to shareholder returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Wolters Kluwer's Future Dividend Projections Appear Well Covered By Earnings Even a low dividend yield can be attractive if it is sustained for years on end. The last dividend was quite easily covered by Wolters Kluwer's earnings. This indicates that quite a large proportion of earnings is being invested back into the business. Over the next year, EPS is forecast to expand by 29.3%. If the dividend continues along recent trends, we estimate the payout ratio will be 43%, which is in the range that makes us comfortable with the sustainability of the dividend. See our latest analysis for Wolters Kluwer Dividend Volatility The company's dividend history has been marked by instability, with at least one cut in the last 10 years. The dividend has gone from an annual total of €0.71 in 2015 to the most recent total annual payment of €2.33. This implies that the company grew its distributions at a yearly rate of about 13% over that duration. Wolters Kluwer has grown distributions at a rapid rate despite cutting the dividend at least once in the past. Companies that cut once often cut again, so we would be cautious about buying this stock solely for the dividend income. The Dividend Looks Likely To Grow With a relatively unstable dividend, it's even more important to see if earnings per share is growing. It's encouraging to see that Wolters Kluwer has been growing its earnings per share at 12% a year over the past five years. Shareholders are getting plenty of the earnings returned to them, which combined with strong growth makes this quite appealing. We Really Like Wolters Kluwer's Dividend Overall, we think this could be an attractive income stock, and it is only getting better by paying a higher dividend this year. The company is easily earning enough to cover its dividend payments and it is great to see that these earnings are being translated into cash flow. All in all, this checks a lot of the boxes we look for when choosing an income stock. Investors generally tend to favour companies with a consistent, stable dividend policy as opposed to those operating an irregular one. However, there are other things to consider for investors when analysing stock performance. Taking the debate a bit further, we've identified 1 warning sign for Wolters Kluwer that investors need to be conscious of moving forward. Is Wolters Kluwer not quite the opportunity you were looking for? Why not check out our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
