Miguel Sousa Tavares: False Empathy, True Prejudice:

 

 

 On the Opposition to Sephardic Nationality in Portugal

On September 5, in an interview to CNN Portugal, the well-known Portuguese writer, Miguel Sousa Tavares has argued against the attribution of Portuguese nationality to Jews of Sephardi descent, grounding his position in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. He goes further, suggesting that instead of extending nationality to Jews, Portugal should focus on strengthening its ties with the PALOP countries—its former colonies in Africa—under the pretext that they are more deserving of recognition and generosity.

At first glance, this might appear as a humanitarian argument, a call for post-colonial responsibility. But beneath its surface lies a troubling logic, one that confuses categories, weaponises empathy, and risks masking prejudice.

Historical Reparation versus Contemporary Politics

The nationality law for Sephardic Jews, passed in 2015, is not about geopolitics. It is not a vote of support for Israel, nor an endorsement of its policies. It is an act of historical reparation for a crime committed on Portuguese soil: the expulsion and forced conversion of Jews during the Inquisition. To oppose this law because of today’s conflict in Gaza is to collapse centuries of history into a single, distorted equation: Jews = Israel = war. That is not just an error of reasoning; it is a textbook example of antisemitic conflation.

The False Dichotomy with the PALOP

Equally flawed is the suggestion that Portugal must “choose” between the Sephardic Jews and the PALOP. The two issues stand on entirely different moral and legal grounds. Cooperation with the PALOP flows from Portugal’s colonial past and is expressed today through aid, development programmes, cultural exchange, and the CPLP framework. None of this is in conflict with the recognition of Sephardic Jews’ right to nationality.

To oppose the latter by invoking the former is to create a false dichotomy. Worse, it instrumentalises the memory of African suffering in order to justify the exclusion of Jews. This is not solidarity; it is a rhetorical sleight of hand.

Empathy as a Cover for Prejudice

Had the author simply argued for more resources to the PALOP, his case could be debated on its own merits. But he chose to link this cause to the rejection of Jews. This suggests that his proclaimed empathy is not the real motive, but rather a convenient veil for hostility towards Jews. When the supposed defense of one victimised group is used as a weapon against another, the mask quickly slips.

Transparency of Motives

Portugal has limited financial means, and no one disputes the need for prudence in its commitments abroad. But prudence cannot become an alibi for prejudice. If the objection to Sephardic nationality were truly about resources, it would be expressed as a question of cost-benefit analysis or administrative capacity—not as a moral denunciation tied to the war in the Middle East. The form of the argument reveals the substance: it is not about budgets; it is about Jews.

Conclusion: Naming the Problem

The author’s position, therefore, is not a defense of post-colonial justice. It is a maneuver that sets victims of history against each other while quietly reviving an old prejudice under the guise of moral concern. Portugal does not need to choose between Jews and Africans. It must honour both legacies, in different ways, consistent with history, justice, and the truth.

To allow the debate to be poisoned by false empathy is to fail twice: towards the Jews expelled five centuries ago, and towards the Africans who suffered under colonialism. The only winners in such a distortion are prejudice and hypocrisy.

---