Covenants for Obeying the Mitzvot

You wrote about the law "unless it is changed." Isn't the fact that most Israelis are not observant (let's assume for the sake of discussion that this is the case) a certain indication of such a change?

I agree, but in my opinion this does not answer the main difficulty..
The reason it is forbidden to transgress the covenant even without the Torah is because it is wrong. Call it wrong because God does not like people doing it or wrong because it is wrong (I think you need the A side according to your article "If there is no God, there is morality") Now, as soon as I know that God does not want us to eat pork and that it is wrong to do things that He does not like, then the matter is already problematic regardless of the obligation.
And regarding A. Do you think that when a people or a state accepts laws as a collective, the individual who did not commit and was not present there is morally obligated? In state laws, I understand it as a law that announces a punishment, but a moral problem that arises from the determination of others does not seem to me to exist.
Thank you.

I never manage to understand the analogy you make between state laws and religious law.
It is true that formally there is something similar here (in both cases it makes sense to preserve the framework) but on a fundamental level the difference is fundamental.
A state is a man-made framework and without accepting the authority of its laws it will fall apart. Religion, on the other hand, is based, or claims to be based, on eternal divine truth. Even if every believer turns their back on it, the truth will remain valid forever (at least according to their system).

From this enormous difference arise two additional differences that, in my opinion, completely undermine your analogy:

First, the authority of state laws is more severe, since obedience to them is an existential condition (if there is no obedience, the state will fall apart in contrast to religion);
Second, and in another sense, the authority of state laws is less severe, since they are not anchored in some “cosmic” truth like the one that religion claims to represent. Therefore, in the case of religion, you cannot say that any group of people in history (for example, the sages) has a principled, formal, or substantive authority that binds the public. Unless that group relies on the original religious truth. Let's say the Holy Scriptures. Of course, if that is what it does, it is not correct to say that it is the source of authority, but rather that the Holy Scriptures are the source of authority.

There is another difference: "Medina" is written with a "m" and "God" begins with an "alef." Why are these differences relevant to my argument?

TX, I don't understand your question.

I was convinced.