Both Europe and the U.S. have so far declined to endow Christians fleeing persecution in the Middle East with the status of asylum seekers. Indeed, writes Elliott Abrams, it is probably more difficult for Christian refugees to get into the U.S. than it is for Muslims. Abrams urges that much more be done:

[Middle Eastern] Christians are not random victims of widespread violence, disorder, or economic collapse. Unlike their Muslim neighbors, they are targets. And unlike their neighbors, they cannot flee to neighboring countries where their coreligionists are in the majority and where prejudice and discrimination against them on the basis of religion will be absent.

In fact, most of the migrants in the flood going to Europe these days likely do not qualify as refugees under international law. Escaping war or economic disaster, or trying for a better life for one’s family, does not meet the definition. Consider our own refugee and asylum laws, in which targeting is the main idea. . . . The Immigration and Nationality Act says asylum requires a “well-founded fear of persecution,” a test many Muslim migrants would not meet but Christians from Iraq and Syria certainly would. . . .

The argument for reaching out to rescue Christian refugees and those from other threatened religious minorities is clear: they are worse off than their Muslim neighbors. They face special circumstances, of which we should in all fairness take account. To turn away from them because they are Christian and we do not wish to be accused of favoritism toward Christians is a shameful position for Americans—Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist—to take.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.