rejects

Morocco coach Walid Regragui has angrily rejected suggestions his team is benefitting from favourable refereeing decisions as the 2025 CAF Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) host.

The Atlas Lions will face fellow favourites, Nigeria, in a titanic semifinal on Wednesday.

“We’re the team to beat. As the team to beat, people will try to find all sorts of reasons to say Morocco has an advantage,” Regragui said after his team’s 2-0 win over Cameroon in the quarterfinals.

“The only advantage that Morocco has at this Africa Cup is playing in front of 65,000 spectators. The rest is on the field, we speak on the field.”

On the field, however, Cameroon might have had two penalties if experienced referee Dahane Beida hadn’t decided in favour of the home team.

Morocco defender Adam Masina was involved in both, appearing to catch Bryan Mbuemo’s right boot after missing the ball when Cameroon was trying to level the match, then, in the final minutes, appearing to strike Etta Eyong’s head with his elbow in the penalty area.

Beida, who refereed the final at the last edition, also decided not to show Bilal El Khannouss a second yellow card for stopping Danny Namaso on a counterattack shortly before Ismael Saibari wrapped up the win.

“Many people want to believe or make others believe that we have advantages from the referees. Personally, I saw penalties that could have been awarded to us. As for the referees, I never talk about the referee,” Regragui said.

The Morocco coach then spoke about a penalty his team was not awarded against South Africa in the previous tournament in the Ivory Coast, and wrongly said he was “suspended for no reason” at that tournament.

Regragui was suspended for two games at the previous edition for his role in a dispute with Congo captain Chancel Mbemba at the end of their game that led to a melee between players and team officials.

“The statistics always show us as better than the others,” Regragui said, getting back to this edition. “We create far more opportunities than our opponents. Not a single goal was disallowed for Cameroon, or for any other team. When you want to get rid of something, you find a pretext.”

Mali and Tanzania also had penalty claims against Morocco rejected in previous games, while Morocco also had a penalty awarded after a VAR check in the draw against Mali.

Thousands of whistling Moroccan fans tried to help referee Abdou Abdel Mefire make up his mind while he consulted replays before he eventually decided to penalise Mali’s Nathan Gassama for handball. He initially ignored Jawad El Yamiq’s penalty-area foul on Mali’s Lassine Sinayoko before awarding it some minutes later after a VAR check.

There did not appear to be any VAR checks against Cameroon on Friday.

Morocco has played all its matches at the nearly 70,000-capacity Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium in Rabat, where the vast majority of supporters are shouting for the home team, creating an intimidating atmosphere for opponents and referees.

“Today, Cameroon played the match they needed to play. I think they lost against a better team. I don’t think any player, coach, or anyone else is going to talk about the refereeing because there were a lot of physical battles today. This is Africa. But today, I think we deserved our victory,” said Regragui, who added his team also deserved to win all its previous games.

“That’s it. We’re trying to play on that field. I don’t think it’s fair play from those who want to see us fall. The best team will win this tournament, inshallah,” he said.

Morocco will play Nigeria at the Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium, which is also the venue for the final on January 18.

The Atlas Lions are among the heavy favourites to win the tournament, having become the first African nation to reach the semifinals of a FIFA World Cup at the Qatar 2022 edition.

The board of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) has unanimously turned down Paramount Skydance’s latest attempt to acquire the studio, saying its revised $108.4bn hostile bid amounted to a risky leveraged buyout that investors should reject.

In a letter to shareholders on Wednesday, the WBD board said Paramount’s offer hinges on “an extraordinary amount of debt financing” that heightens the risk of closing. It reaffirmed its commitment to streaming giant Netflix’s $82.7bn deal for the film and television studio and other assets.

Some investors, however, pushed back on Warner Bros. Pentwater Capital Management CEO Matthew Halbower said that the media giant’s board had “made an error” by not considering Paramount’s bid.

On CNBC on Wednesday, Halbower called the deal “economically superior”.

Paramount’s financing plan would saddle the smaller Hollywood studio with $87bn in debt once the acquisition closes, making it the largest leveraged buyout in history, the Warner Bros board told shareholders after voting against the $30-per-share cash offer on Tuesday. The letter accompanied a 67-page amended merger filing that laid out its case for rejecting Paramount’s offer.

Paramount deal ‘remains inadequate’

The revised Paramount offer “remains inadequate particularly given the insufficient value it would provide, the lack of certainty in Paramount Skydance ability to complete the offer, and the risks and costs borne by WBD shareholders should Paramount Skydance fail to complete the offer”, the Warner Bros board wrote.

Paramount, which has a market value of about $14bn, proposed to use $40bn in equity, which would be personally guaranteed by Oracle’s billionaire co-founder Larry Ellison, whose son David is Paramount’s CEO, and $54bn in debt to finance the deal.

Its financing plan would further weaken its credit rating, which S&P Global already rates at junk levels, and strain its cash flow – heightening the risk that the deal will not close, the Warner Bros board said. Netflix, which has offered $27.75 a share in cash and stock, has a $400bn market value and investment-grade credit rating.

The decision keeps Warner Bros on track to pursue the deal with Netflix, even after Paramount amended its bid on December 22 to address the earlier concerns about the lack of a personal guarantee from Ellison, who is Paramount’s controlling shareholder.

Paramount and Netflix have been vying to win control of Warner Bros, and with it, its prized film and television studios and its extensive content library. Its lucrative entertainment franchises include  Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Comics universe; as well as coveted classic films such as Casablanca and Citizen Kane.

Netflix applauds

Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters welcomed Warner Bros’ decision on Wednesday, saying it recognises the streaming giant’s deal “as the superior proposal that will deliver the greatest value to its stockholders, as well as consumers, creators and the broader entertainment industry”.

Warner Bros Chairman Samuel Di Piazza told CNBC that the company was not currently in talks with Paramount but remains open to a transaction with the Ellison-led firm, and both the deals have a path to regulatory approval.

“From our perspective, they’ve got to put something on the table that is compelling,” he said, referring to the Paramount offer.

Wednesday’s filing said Warner Bros’ board met on December 23 to review Paramount’s amended offer and noted some improvements, including Ellison’s personal guarantee and a higher reverse termination fee of $5.8bn, but found “significant costs” associated with Paramount’s bid compared with a Netflix deal.

Warner Bros would be obligated to pay the streaming service a $2.8bn termination fee for abandoning its merger agreement with Netflix, $1.5bn in fees to its lenders and about $350m in additional financing costs. Altogether, Warner Bros said it would incur about $4.7bn in additional costs to terminate its deal with Netflix, or $1.79 per share.

The board repeated some concerns it had laid out on December 17, such as that Paramount would impose operating restrictions on the studio that would harm its business and competitive position, including barring the planned spin-out of the company’s cable television networks into a separate public company, Discovery Global.

Paramount offered “insufficient compensation” for the damage done to the studio’s business, if the Paramount deal failed to close, Warner Bros said.

Paramount “repeatedly failed to submit the best proposal” to Warner Bros shareholders, the board wrote, “despite clear direction” on the deficiencies in its bid and potential solutions.

The jockeying for Warner Bros has become Hollywood’s most closely watched takeover battle, as studios race to scale up amid intensifying competition from streaming platforms and volatile theatrical revenues.

While Netflix’s offer has a lower headline value, analysts have said it presents a clearer financing structure and fewer execution risks than Paramount’s bid for the entire company, including its cable TV business.

“WBD does not want to sell to Paramount, so it will keep rejecting Paramount as long as it is able to,” said Ross Benes, an analyst at eMarketer.

“But this process is not over … Paramount will have opportunity to make further attempts.”

Harris Oakmark, Warner Bros’ fifth-largest investor, previously told Reuters that Paramount’s revised offer was not “sufficient”, noting it was not enough to cover the breakup fee.

Paramount has argued its bid would face fewer regulatory obstacles, but a combined Paramount-Warner Bros entity would create a formidable competitor to industry leader Disney and merge two major television operators and two streaming services.

The valuation of Warner Bros’ planned Discovery Global spin-off, which includes cable television networks CNN, TNT Sports and the Discovery+ streaming service, is seen as a major sticking point. Analysts peg the cable channels’ value at up to $4 per share, while Paramount has suggested just $1.

Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about further consolidation in the media industry, and US President Donald Trump has said he plans to weigh in on the landmark acquisition.

On Wall Street, Warner Bros Discovery is up 0.3 percent in midday trading amid the news of the rejected bid. Netflix is also up 0.3. Meanwhile, Paramount is down 0.1 percent.

The United States has raised the prospect of using military force to take control of Greenland as leaders in Europe and Canada rallied behind the Arctic territory, saying it belongs to its people.

In a statement on Tuesday, the White House said that US President Donald Trump sees acquiring Greenland, which is part of Denmark, as a national security priority, necessary to “deter our adversaries in the Arctic region”.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the ​US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” it said.

Any attempt by the US to seize Greenland from longtime ally Denmark would send shockwaves through the NATO alliance and deepen the divide between Trump and European leaders.

The opposition has not deterred Trump, however.

His interest in Greenland, initially aired in 2019 during his first term in office, has been rekindled following the US’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in an attack on Caracas.

Emboldened by the operation, Trump has said that “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again”, and has stepped up pressure on both Colombia and Cuba. He has also argued that controlling Greenland is vital to US national security, claiming the island “is covered with Russian and Chinese ships” and that Denmark lacks the capacity to protect it.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, but with a population of just 57,000 people, has repeatedly said it does not ‍want to be part of the US.

Its strategic location between Europe and North America makes it a critical site for the US ballistic missile defence system, while its mineral wealth aligns with Washington’s ambition to reduce reliance on Chinese exports.

Greenland ‘belongs to its people’

The White House statement on Tuesday came as leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in issuing a statement reaffirming that Greenland “belongs to its people”.

“It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” they said.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also voiced support, announcing that Governor General Mary Simon, who is of Inuit descent, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand would visit Greenland early next month.

In a separate statement, Nordic foreign ministers – from Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark – also stressed Greenland’s right to decide its own affairs. They also noted they had increased their investments in Arctic security, and offered to do more in consultation with the US and other NATO allies.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also warned that threats against a NATO member undermined the alliance’s credibility. “No member should attack or threaten another ‌member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Otherwise, NATO would lose its meaning,” he said.

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the European leaders’ pledge of solidarity and renewed his ‌call to the US for a “respectful dialogue”.

Denmark, meanwhile, rejected Trump’s assertion that it is unable to protect Greenland.

“We do not share this image that Greenland ‍is plastered with Chinese investments… ⁠nor that there are Chinese warships up and down along Greenland,” Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen said, adding that the US was welcome to invest more on the island.

Greenland’s government said it had asked for an urgent meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with Rasmussen, to discuss the situation.

Also on Tuesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, whom Trump appointed last month as US special envoy to Greenland, said he was not interested in talking to people in Denmark or European diplomats over Greenland.

Instead, he said he wants to have conversations directly with residents of Greenland. “I want to talk to people who want an opportunity to improve the quality of life in Greenland,” the Republican said on a Fox News radio show.

Separately, The Wall Street Journal reported that Rubio had told US lawmakers during a congressional briefing that the recent threats did not signal an imminent invasion of Greenland and that the goal is to ‌buy the island from Denmark.

The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, also dismissed concerns about Danish sovereignty.

“You can ⁠talk all you want about international niceties and everything else,” Miller told CNN. “But we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that ​is governed by power.”

Members of Congress, including some of Trump’s fellow Republicans, pushed back.

“When Denmark and Greenland make it clear that Greenland is not for sale, the United States must honour its treaty obligations and respect the sovereignty and ‌territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark,” said Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Senator Thom Tillis, the co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group.

US President Donald Trump and his allies have defended the US attacks on Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolas Maduro from power amid widespread condemnation that the actions violate international law.

Trump told reporters on Saturday that Maduro was “captured” after US military strikes on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, for carrying out a purported “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States”.

He said the US government would “run” the South American country during a political transition, promising the Venezuelan people that they would become “rich, independent and safe”.

But Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, has rejected the Trump administration’s arguments in defence of the attacks and removal of Maduro, as well as its plans to exert control over Venezuela.

“I don’t think there’s any basis under international law for the action that occurred overnight by the US government,” Finkelstein told Al Jazeera, describing the attacks as an “illegal use of force [and] a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty”.

“Maduro has personal jurisdiction rights, so not only is it a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but it’s a violation of his personal, international rights,” she said.

Numerous statutes of international law – including the UN Charter – prohibit states from attacking another country without provocation.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the UN Charter says.

The US actions came amid a months-long pressure campaign against Maduro, whom the Trump administration accused, without evidence, of being linked to drug traffickers.

Washington had carried out deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, seized vessels carrying oil off the Venezuelan coast, sanctioned members of Maduro’s family, and threatened to launch attacks on the country’s soil.

“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator, he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation,” US Congressman Tom Cotton, a top Trump ally, wrote on social media on Saturday, welcoming the moves against the Venezuelan leader.

Before he was seized, Maduro had said he was open to dialogue with the US on drug trafficking. He also had accused the Trump administration of seeking to depose him and seize control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

‘No imminent threat’

Democratic Party lawmakers in the US had been demanding answers from the Trump administration about its aims in Venezuela, accusing the Republican president of seeking to unlawfully carry out acts of war without congressional oversight.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.

But that authority has been weakened over the last several decades, with the US carrying out military strikes around the world during its so-called “war on terror” based on loosely-interpreted congressional authorisations.

On Saturday, Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said that, despite the Trump administration’s claims, “there was no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela, “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization”.

“These actions violate both US and international law and, by Trump’s own admission, this is not a limited operation,” Meeks said in a statement shared on social media.

This was echoed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Finkelstein, who said there was no “immediate threat” to the US that would justify the executive branch carrying out attacks without notifying Congress.

“It was an act of war against Venezuela, and we did not have the kind of self-defence justification that would normally justify bypassing Congress,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Even if you believe the US is at grave danger because of drug trafficking, there isn’t the kind of imminence there that would justify the president moving unilaterally and not turning to Congress and trying to get them on board.”

Finkelstein also rejected Trump’s plans for the US to “run” Venezuela as “incredibly illegal”.

“States have sovereignty rights, and you cannot just invade them and take them over,” she said.

“Even if Maduro were to fall of his own accord and we had not brought that about, we don’t have the right to go in and start running their government,” Finkelstein said.

“Democracy is premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and the people choose their own leaders, and that’s something we should be promoting in Latin and South America, not trying to undermine.”

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has again denied a request from the defence team of former President Jair Bolsonaro to move him from prison to house arrest.

Bolsonaro, 70, has been in and out of hospital over the past week, undergoing multiple treatments for aggressive hiccups and a hernia.

But on Thursday, his petition for house arrest on “humanitarian grounds” was denied, a day after it was filed.

In explaining the court’s decision, Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that Bolsonaro already has access to round-the-clock medical care in police custody.

The former right-wing leader is currently being held at the federal police headquarters in the capital, Brasilia, after being sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat.

De Moraes also questioned whether Bolsonaro’s health merited “humanitarian” accommodations.

“Contrary to what the defence alleges, there has been no worsening of Jair Messias Bolsonaro’s health condition,” the justice said in his decision.

“Rather, his clinical condition showed improvement in the discomfort he was experiencing after undergoing elective surgeries, as indicated in the report from his own doctors.”

Multiple requests

This is not the first time the court has rejected a similar petition from Bolsonaro, who has reportedly suffered from lingering conditions, including hiccups, related to an abdominal stabbing he survived on the campaign trail in 2018.

Bolsonaro was taken into custody in November after damaging an ankle monitor that allowed him to remain at home while pursuing appeals. He had been convicted in September.

But shortly after Bolsonaro was remanded into custody, his defence team filed a request for house arrest, warning of life-threatening conditions behind bars.

“It is certain that keeping the petitioner in a prison environment would pose a concrete and immediate risk to his physical integrity and even his life,” his lawyers wrote.

That request, and a subsequent one in December, have been denied.

On December 23, though, the Supreme Court approved Bolsonaro’s request to leave prison, in order to undergo surgery for a hernia, resulting from damage to his abdominal muscles.

He travelled to Brasilia’s DF Star hospital to receive treatment and has since pursued other procedures, including a phrenic nerve block treatment and an endoscopy, to address his persistent hiccups.

Election controversy

A former army captain, Bolsonaro became a rising star in Brazil’s far right and served as president for a single term, from 2019 to 2023.

During his term, he faced scrutiny for comments he made praising Brazil’s military dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1964 to 1985 and oversaw the systematic torture and killings of political dissidents.

He also allegedly used his office to cast doubt on the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting system.

In 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) would ultimately bar Bolsonaro from holding public office for eight years, citing instances where he broadcast unfounded allegations about the election system on state TV and social media.

Still, Bolsonaro was considered a frontrunner going into the 2022 presidential race, where he faced two-term former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The race advanced to an October 30 run-off. Lula eked out a narrow win, besting the incumbent Bolsonaro by less than two percentage points, with 50.9 percent of the vote.

In the aftermath, Bolsonaro refused to publicly concede defeat, although media reports indicate he may have done so in private.

Meanwhile, he and his allies filed a legal challenge against the election outcome that was quickly rejected for its “total absence of any evidence”. Bolsonaro’s coalition was fined nearly $4.3m for the “bad faith” petition.

But the unfounded belief that Bolsonaro’s defeat was somehow illegitimate prompted his supporters to take to the streets. Some blocked highways. Others attacked the federal police headquarters.

The tensions culminated on January 8, 2023, a week after Lula’s inauguration, when thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brasilia’s Three Powers Plaza and broke into buildings representing Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.

Some supporters expressed hope that they could lead to a military coup that would remove Lula from power.

Legal jeopardy

That attack prompted wide-ranging investigations, and in November 2024, federal police issued a sweeping report accusing Bolsonaro and 36 allies of attempting to “violently dismantle” Brazil’s constitutional order.

The report detailed alleged instances where Bolsonaro and his allies discussed invalidating the election results — or even assassinating Lula.

Last February, prosecutors formally charged Bolsonaro and dozens of codefendants for attempting to overthrow the 2022 election.

His trial unfolded despite high-level international pressure from right-wing figures like United States President Donald Trump, who imposed steep tariffs on Brazil in August to protest against the prosecution.

Still, in September, Bolsonaro was found guilty on five counts, including attempted coup d’etat, armed conspiracy, attempted abolition of the rule of law, destruction of public property and damage to national heritage.

Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing throughout the case and has called his prosecution an attempt to silence a political rival.

He remains a popular figure on the right, and his eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, announced last month his intention to challenge Lula for the presidency this upcoming October.

Last month, Brazil’s conservative-led Congress also passed a bill that could shorten Bolsonaro’s sentence, though Lula has pledged to veto it.

US President Donald Trump warned Nicolas Maduro to ‘not play tough’ and to step down on Monday, while the Venezuelan leader said Trump should focus on the issues in his own country. Trump told reporters the US will keep 1.9 million barrels of oil that were seized near Venezuela in December.

Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s latest offer, alleging the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind Paramount’s $78-billion bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.

Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote in a Wednesday letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.

For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The Warner auction has taken a nasty turn. Last week, Paramount launched a hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members unanimously approved Netflix’s $72-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.

In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.

Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing was shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Warner also said Paramount’s proposal contained troubling caveats, such as language in its documents that said Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”

The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.

(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.

In its letter last week to shareholders, asking for their support, Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.

In regulatory filings, Paramount disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount). This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.

Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.

“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said.

Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.

“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.

Board members argued that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” according to the board letter.

David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s Dec. 4 offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid. Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.

Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.

Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.

However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.

“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”

The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.

Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.

Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.

Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.

Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.

“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.

A Canadian lawmaker who was denied entry to the occupied West Bank, alongside fellow politicians and civil society leaders, has dismissed Israel’s claims that the delegation posed a threat to public safety.

Jenny Kwan, a Canadian MP with the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP), questioned whether Canada’s recognition of an independent Palestinian state earlier this year contributed to Israel’s decision to block the group.

“How is it that members of parliament are a public safety concern?” she said in an interview with Al Jazeera. “How is it that civil society organisations who are doing humanitarian work… [are] a security concern?”

Kwan and five other MPs were among 30 Canadian delegates denied entry to the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Tuesday after Israel deemed them a risk to public safety.

The delegation, organised by nonprofit group The Canadian-Muslim Vote, was turned back to Jordan at the King Hussein (Allenby) Bridge crossing, which connects Jordan with the West Bank and is controlled by Israel on the Palestinian side, after an hours-long security check.

Kwan said another female MP in the group was “manhandled” by Israeli border agents while attempting to keep an eye on a delegate who was being taken for additional interrogation.

“She was shoved – not once, not twice, but multiple times – by border agents there,” Kwan said. “A member of parliament was handled in that way – If you were just an everyday person, what else could have happened?”

The delegates had been expected to meet with Palestinian community members to discuss daily realities in the West Bank, where residents have faced a surge in Israeli military and settler violence.

They were also planning to meet with Jewish families affected by the conflict, said Kwan, who described the three-day trip as a fact-finding mission.

“I reject the notion that that is a public safety concern,” she said of the delegation’s mission.

Lack of information

Global Affairs Canada, the country’s Foreign Ministry, did not respond to Al Jazeera’s questions about the incident.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said on Tuesday afternoon that the ministry was in contact with the delegation and had “expressed Canada’s objections regarding the mistreatment of these Canadians while attempting to cross”.

The Israeli military did not respond to Al Jazeera’s repeated requests for comment.

In a statement to Canada’s public broadcaster CBC News, the Israeli military agency that oversees affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, COGAT, said the Canadian delegates were turned back because they arrived “without prior coordination”.

COGAT also said the group’s members were “denied for security reasons”.

But the delegates said they had applied for, and received, Israel Electronic Travel Authorization permits before they reached the crossing. Kwan also said the Canadian government informed Israel ahead of time of the delegation’s plans.

“I’m not quite sure exactly what kind of coordination is required,” Kwan told Al Jazeera.

“We followed every step that we’re supposed to follow, so I’m not quite sure exactly what they mean or what they’re referring to.”

Canada-Israel ties

Canada, a longstanding supporter of Israel, faced the ire of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after it joined several European allies in recognising an independent Palestinian state in September.

“Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats,” Netanyahu said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.

The recognition came after months of mass protests in Canada and other Western countries demanding an end to Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has killed more than 70,000 people since October 2023.

Rights advocates also called for action to stem a surge in deadly Israeli violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Against that backdrop, members of the Canadian delegation questioned whether their entry refusal was part of an Israeli effort to prevent people from witnessing what is happening on the ground in the Palestinian territory.

“‘What are they trying to hide?’ is the question that comes to mind,” Fawad Kalsi, the CEO of the relief group Penny Appeal Canada and one of the delegates, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.

Kwan, the Canadian MP, raised a similar question, saying, “If people cannot witness” what is happening on the ground in the West Bank, “then misinformation and disinformation will continue”.

She added that she also saw foreign doctors being turned back to Jordan at the King Hussein (Allenby) Bridge crossing as they tried to bring medicine and baby formula into the West Bank.

“If we as members of parliament could face denial of entry,” she said, “imagine what is going on on the ground with other people, and the difficulties that they face, that we do not know about.”