Denmark has reaffirmed that it will not, for now, accept medical evacuations of Palestinian patients from Gaza, citing security assessments and potential migration pressures. The position contrasts with World Health Organization (WHO)-coordinated transfers that have already brought patients to 11 EU member states.
In a written reply to parliament on 9 July, Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard stated that the government’s decision “was taken on the basis of an overall assessment,” including immigration and security considerations. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) had judged that evacuations “could entail a security risk” both from some patients and from accompanying persons or family members who might later arrive through family reunification. The government added that it would continue to prioritise humanitarian assistance “in and around Gaza”.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has linked the issue directly to Denmark’s restrictive migration policy. Speaking to Jyllands-Posten, she said family reunification could “very quickly arise”, a rationale reported by Le Monde in an article on 22 August noting that Denmark remains an outlier within the EU on accepting wounded Gazans. According to that report, nearly 900 Danish doctors and about 450 nurses have petitioned the government to admit patients.
The EU’s civil protection service, which is coordinating with WHO, said that by 11 June a total of 223 patients and 503 companions had been evacuated to 11 member states including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, as well as to three participating states outside the EU. Italy has taken the largest share of cases under the scheme.
Domestically, the government’s stance has drawn sustained debate in the Folketing. Parliamentary questions in June and July pressed ministers on whether patients from Gaza constitute a security risk and whether Denmark should contribute to the joint European effort. The official reply reiterated PET’s assessment and the government’s position that assistance is best focused in the region. The same reply put Denmark’s humanitarian support for the Palestine crisis at about DKK 930 million since 2023, including funding for WHO activities and an International Committee of the Red Cross field hospital.
The discussion has at times referenced earlier Danish experience with a specific cohort of Palestinian arrivals in the 1990s. An official 2017 answer to parliament recorded that 321 stateless Palestinians granted residence under a special law in 1992 had, between 1992 and 2016, 204 individuals with convictions, including 37 given unconditional prison terms and 30 conditional sentences; the remainder received fines or other outcomes such as warnings. The document does not describe “long prison terms” for 67 people, and it relates to that particular cohort rather than to Palestinians in Denmark generally.
While declining to take patients, Denmark has adjusted other elements of its Middle East policy. On 16 August, Ms Frederiksen said conditions were not yet right to recognise a Palestinian state, a position she set alongside criticism of the conduct of the war in Gaza.
Advocates of medical evacuations point to the fact that patients and companions are screened before travel. WHO documentation describes clearance procedures and the distribution of patients among receiving countries under the EU-WHO mechanism.
The government maintains that its approach aligns with national security priorities while meeting humanitarian responsibilities through funding and support closer to the conflict zone. For now, the policy leaves Denmark as one of the few European countries not participating in transfers that have moved hundreds of patients to EU hospitals since last year, with further operations dependent on access and security conditions at Gaza’s crossings.
Taken together, the official security assessment, the politically sensitive question of family reunification, and Denmark’s emphasis on in-region aid explain why Copenhagen has not joined the EU states receiving Gazan patients, despite pressure from parts of the medical community and examples set by neighbouring countries.
