Read diaries of anyone heteronormative living in a collapsing empire.
The Israeli experience is swayed heavily by decades of supremacist propaganda which is unfortunately becoming baked into the religion. I've had a surprising number of conversations with Israelis about politics that at some point involved them mentioning Israelis being "god's chosen people."
Even Israeli progressives have to couch opposition to war in desire to get the hostages back, or they'll face incredible social blowback. Not to mention those with religious oppositions to serving in the military are propagandized as "not contributing to Israeli society," since the only valid way to do that is commit violence on behalf of the State.
A lot of Israelis who reference “God’s chosen people” aren’t claiming superiority in the way it’s often interpreted abroad. In Jewish tradition, “chosen” historically means chosen for responsibility, not privilege. The phrase “light unto the nations” captures this: it’s about modeling ethical behavior, justice, and compassion, not dominating or controlling others.
Understanding this helps separate the original ethical meaning of “chosen” from the way it’s sometimes misinterpreted in political discourse: it’s meant to be a call to moral responsibility, not a claim of inherent superiority.
> chosen” historically means chosen for responsibility, not privilege.
> moral responsibility
Yes, this is identical to how it was stated by the three separate Israelis I had this conversation with that said it exactly this way.
I ask genuinely if you understand this:
Do you see how believing that a supreme being has granted "your people" a moral responsibility could easily lead to any actions "your people" do being ipso facto "moral" by definition of the fact it's performed by "your people?"
Do you see how just the mere separation of people into "chosen by god (even just to live better)" and "not chosen by god (not responsible for living better)" can easily create a supremacist ideology?
Do you understand that, from a scientific perspective framed in sociology and anthropology, there's no such thing as a Jewish person or non Jewish person in any externally consistent definition, that the definition is only enforceable by internal justifications, and that therefore it's arbitrary who is chosen and who isn't? And therefore exploitable by supremacists? See: e.g. Whiteness; Jews are white when it's convenient, and nonwhite when not convenient, same for Italians, Irish, Catholics...
Not to mention: Hassidic Jews in Israel refuse to participate in the military. Other Israeli Jews say this is traitorous to the Jewish people, not doing their part to keep Jews safe. Some Israelis say horribly racist things about Palestinians, comparing them to animals and openly calling for their extermination. Others don't. Which Jewish people are correctly implementing the moral responsibility set forth by the Jewish god?
You’re right that claims of being “chosen” can be misused, but in classical Judaism it means chosen for personal moral responsibility, not automatic virtue or supremacy. The phrase “light unto the nations” emphasizes modeling justice, compassion, and humility through your own actions. Anyone who interprets it as justification for harming others or claiming inherent superiority is a fringe distortion, not representative of Jewish teaching.
Reminds me of the Frenchs and their "pays des droits de l'homme", although I don't believe it's been as operational as the "chosen people" in practice.
If you have read any newspaper or media publication for past 75 year, you have got their view. Or any of the several films Hollywood has produced about the subject, ever heard of Spielberg?
or Israelis 40 years ago today
or 75 years ago
or Palestinian Jews 100 years ago
etc