When did this "always" start? We seem to have I think the always started when the "chosenness" became forced. First we can see it with Moses not wanting to be the chosen leader of the people, then with the Israelites being forced to accept the Torah at Sinai (the whole mountain being held over their heads midrash).

Has he just not learned the first two books of the Torah? There's hardly anything mysterious about it.

It's not particularly clear from the Torah itself why Abram was chosen. Sure, we've got the midrash about him smashing the idols and whatnot, but it's a bit mysterious why he and his lineage were given this brit olam.

That's the value he sees in it? Is this not offensive to Reform converts?

You're absolutely right. I don't know where he gets off saying that. He is claiming earlier in the article that it has to do with some kind of inborn drive to be on the cultural vanguard or whatever, so it's not about race or biology, but it's still idiotic.

And with that, a wish becomes a reality. The piece is ostensibly about what it means to be chosen, and whether being chosen (stated as a fact) is a good thing. With this line, it becomes a matter purely of our own (apparently selfish) imaginations.

The oyster and pearl metaphor works great for me, but the way he makes use of it doesn't. I accept that in this place and age we all more or less choose to be chosen, because Jews in most countries can choose to live a fully secular life and not identify as Jews at all. So to identify as a Jew is to accept the sand that will create the pearl, as it were. But he doesn't really explain himself, what the sand is, what the pearl is, or why it's something bigger than personal gratification.

I have yet to hear of a (nominally religious or proudly cultural) Jew who doesn't believe that Jews have a responsibility to be an example of to take part in some form of Tikkun Olam. Belief in this responsibility implies a belief in specialness, and it's far more significant than Nobel Prizes.

It's a belief in specialness, but only in that our brit makes us responsible for making the world a better place in one way or another. The Nobel Prize argument he's making rings of pseudo-eugenics, the kind of which are still poisoning the well of Liberal Judaism in many ways. To fully understand his point, I think you have to look at the difficulty many non-practicing Jews have with understanding or grasping their identity. If it is purely tied up in their heredity, then being Jewish for them has to be something akin to racial superiority. That's where this whole thing is going awry, and is revealing a lot about ethnocentricity within Liberal Judaism.

So to summarise the article: "What does it really mean to be 'The Chosen People'? ... It's a fantasy, and it's harmful to us, so we should stop believing it". I can't tell whether it's a bait-and-switch title or just an incoherent system of thought.

The latter. He seems to imply in many places that it's good and has helped the Jewish people reach further and attain more throughout history. I honestly think this article is a pile of hot garbage.