Why is Van Bossuyt opposing Belgium’s evacuation of 13 students from Gaza?

Belgium’s Federal Minister of Asylum and Migration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA), publicly opposed bringing 13 Palestinian scholarship students from Gaza to Belgium on 6 September 2026. Speaking on VRT’s De zevende dag, she argued that their arrival could generate further migration obligations. Her intervention made the disagreement public, but did not establish a final government refusal: contemporary reporting said ministers still had to discuss the evacuation. [De Standaard’s report of the interview](https://www.standaard.be/politiek/minister-van-bossuyt-n-va-verzet-zich-tegen-evacuatie-van-studenten-uit-gaza-er-is-een-domino-effect/35089272.html) confirms that distinction.

The immediate question is whether students offered an academic future in Belgium can actually reach it. University admission, immigration paperwork and departure from Gaza are different stages, and the reporting does not establish that all 13 have completed each administrative step. Anadolu’s account of the broadcast quotes Flor Didden of the Belgian development organisation 11.11.11 saying that visas had been issued in some cases. It also reports that some students have waited up to two years. [Anadolu’s report](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/belgian-migration-minister-opposes-bringing-13-palestinian-students-from-gaza/4049025) therefore supports caution about describing the entire group as ready to travel.

Van Bossuyt’s argument concerns what might follow their arrival. According to De Standaard, she warned of a “domino effect”: students could subsequently seek asylum or family reunification, while return after their studies could prove difficult. She also asked how Belgium would justify different treatment for students from Yemen, Sudan or Afghanistan. This is a policy argument about precedent and future responsibilities. It is not evidence that these particular students intend to make those applications, or an estimate of how many additional people might eventually qualify.

There is a competing position inside the federal executive. De Standaard reported later on 6 September that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Affairs and Development Cooperation Maxime Prévot (Les Engagés) supported evacuation and had prepared practical scenarios. The newspaper placed Vooruit alongside Les Engagés and MR alongside N-VA in the dispute. That reported alignment cuts across the language border: it is a disagreement between coalition partners, rather than a straightforward Flemish-versus-Francophone confrontation. [De Standaard’s follow-up](https://www.standaard.be/politiek/van-bossuyt-blokkeert-nu-openlijk-evacuatie-van-studenten-uit-gaza-prevot-zet-door-met-voorbereiding/161046576.html) describes preparations, not an authorised departure.

University representatives start from the commitments already made. In Anadolu’s reporting, University of Antwerp Rector Herwig Leirs presents the obstacle as one of political will. Didden, meanwhile, points to university invitations, scholarships and visas already issued in individual cases. Their argument asks the government to make academic opportunities usable. The disagreement is consequently about the weight attached to identifiable students’ circumstances versus the minister’s concern about a broader precedent.

The institutional difficulty predates Sunday’s interview. In the Chamber of Representatives’ foreign affairs committee on 15 July, Prévot explained in French that a visa did not itself oblige Belgium to organise an evacuation. He acknowledged both operational difficulties and administrative requirements poorly suited to conditions in Gaza. In the same exchange, federal MPs Nabil Boukili (PTB-PVDA) and Meyrem Almaci (Ecolo-Groen) pressed for solutions for admitted students. The [official parliamentary record](https://www.dekamer.be/doc/CCRI/html/56/ic429x.html) shows that access to the visa process and access to transport were already distinct, unresolved issues before the summer recess.

Belgium’s division of powers helps explain why an academic offer cannot settle the matter. Federal Foreign Affairs guidance states that education belongs to the French, Flemish and German-speaking Communities. These are distinct from the territorial Regions. Universities can offer places within that educational framework; the immigration and diplomatic decisions discussed by the federal ministers sit elsewhere. Brussels or Wallonia cannot resolve the evacuation question simply through an education initiative. The [official French-language study guidance](https://verenigdearabischeemiraten.diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/venir-en-belgique/etudier-en-belgique) explicitly separates educational responsibilities from entry requirements.

There is also a qualification to the suggestion that finishing a course necessarily means immediate departure. The Immigration Office’s French-language documentation describes a route allowing eligible graduates to request up to 12 additional months to seek employment or establish a business. That requires an application and does not guarantee permanent residence. Nevertheless, it shows that Belgian policy already accommodates certain transitions beyond study. [The Immigration Office’s explanation](https://dofi.ibz.be/sites/default/files/2026-03/STAT_Studenten-Etudiants_FR_2025.pdf) makes clear why a political warning about future residence should not be mistaken for a complete account of the rules.

For Prime Minister Bart De Wever, in office since 3 February 2025 according to his [official biography](https://premier.be/fr/biographie), the dispute arrives during his government’s second autumn. Belga’s 7 September rentrée report, published by La Libre, listed the stranded scholarship recipients among the issues awaiting a restricted cabinet meeting. The broader lesson is about coordination: an opportunity supported by one Belgian institution may remain inaccessible without action by another. [La Libre’s government agenda report](https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/politique-belge/2026/09/07/privatisation-partielle-de-belfius-etudiants-coinces-a-gaza-survol-de-bruxelles-voici-le-programme-de-la-rentree-du-gouvernement-federal-ADAB42HGTRFKJEV2OD6RADOZTA/) places that decision alongside the autumn’s other federal business.

The next meaningful development would be a collective decision accompanied by a workable administrative and travel arrangement. No subsequent cabinet outcome, complete visa breakdown or confirmed departure date was verified for this article as of 9 September. Those details will determine whether the public disagreement produces a route to university, a further delay or a formal refusal.