Jewish state

There is an entry on Wikipedia about this, which reads:
The expression of the Jewish nation
The characteristics of the State of Israel and the Declaration of Independence identify it as a ”Jewish nation-state” that is, as a state influenced by its connection to Jewish tradition and heritage. The Jewish character of the State of Israel is expressed in four components.[1]

The first component Zionism, in its most primary and basic sense, was a national liberation movement that sought to free the Jews from reliance on external factors to determine their fate, and it sought to achieve sovereign means that included, among other things, political, military, and economic power, which would allow the Jews to define themselves and their fate.

The second component that defines Israel as a Jewish state is the Law of Return. This law, closely related to the first component of national self-determination, states that all Jews, wherever they are, have the right to citizenship in the State of Israel and can make the State of Israel their home if they so desire. Israel was established, among other things, to prevent a situation in which Jews seeking asylum knock on the doors of countries that do not want their presence. The justification for the Law of Return in Israel does not depend solely on arguments of possible hardship. If ethno-cultural groups have the right to self-determination, that is, the right to maintain a sovereign space in which they are the majority of the population and in which their culture develops and flourishes.

The third component that defines Israel as a Jewish state concerns the dimensions of publicity – such as the symbols of the state, its official language, and the calendar. These characteristics are related to the contents of the symbols of Jewish culture and tradition, such as the menorah, the Star of David, and the Hebrew language. The state calendar will be designed according to the Hebrew calendar, and the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays will be the official days of rest.

The fourth and most important component is related to the public education system. In the State of Israel, as a Jewish state, the public education system is supposed to be committed to the continuity and flourishing of Jewish cultures. Jewish cultures are numerous, because within the Jewish nation there are completely different understandings of the nature of Jewish life and the meaning of Jewish education.

In the State of Israel, many laws with Jewish characteristics have been enacted, these laws are divided into three main categories:

Laws that arise from being the state of the Jewish people (for example: Basic Law: Israel - the Nation-State of the Jewish People, Law of Return, Citizenship Law, Law of the Status of the World Zionist Organization – Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel)
Laws that arise from Jewish Halacha (for example: The Feast of Unleavened Bread Law, Rabbinical Court Law, Law Prohibiting the Breeding of Pigs)
Laws that arise from Jewish culture (for example: Broadcasting Authority Law, Fundamentals of Law Law, National Education Law).
The emphasis on the Jewish character of the state, at the expense of its democratic character, is reflected in the public debate on diverse issues such as opening businesses on the Sabbath, the authority of rabbinical courts, and the evacuation of territories in peace agreements.
…
Justice Barak determined in the ruling that the most minimal interpretation of the concept of “Jewish state” is as follows:

“At the center of them is the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, in which Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the main official language of the state and its main holidays and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish people; Israel's heritage is a central component of its religious and cultural heritage”.

It is what I said, ethnicity without value components.

I will take the liberty of answering on my own behalf that first of all they were probably talking (as the rabbi said) about the "state of the Jews" as opposed to the state of all its citizens. Then there are a few things to consider, for example: 1. Why would anyone (a sane Jew) risk their life for a state that is not theirs but is merely a contract between people who are not related to them? 2. The concept of ownership by the people (the nation) over the geographical area of the state. That is, the ratio between the ownership of the land of each person in such a state and that of the people's ownership of all the land in the state (the people's ownership of their land) is, roughly, like the ratio of the ownership of someone who rents a room in someone's apartment, over that room, to the landlord's ownership of that room. And I am talking specifically about the Arab citizens who do not belong to the Jewish nation that the state belongs to (and according to which the state of all its citizens does not exist at all).

Even if all of this is true, there are no values here, only ethnicity. But I really disagree with the point. Regardless of nationality, if I am a citizen of a country and it is threatened, I defend it. It is the same in every country, regardless of national cohesion.
Also regarding ownership, all citizens are a group that can also have sovereignty.

How Heroes Fell

Of course there are no values here. This is just a simple (primitive) reality of life of every people. But there is no need for values at all. It's like if you have a family, you buy an apartment. The state is a necessary instrument (regulating the formal affairs of the relationships between people in society). But just as a system of laws does not replace the natural sense of justice of society, so people in practice did not just gather to establish a state (somewhere in the world in history). There was (and should be) always some kind of relationship that is more than business between people and for this reason there is really no country in the world that is a state of all its citizens, not even the USA (they keep talking about the American People or Nation). If there were no American people but only a business association, I doubt if anyone would go out and risk their lives in the mountains of Afghanistan. I refer the rabbi to his words on this subject in two carts. Citizens and the state are tools that serve the essence – A nation or at least some kind of relationship that is more than a business contract. It cannot become the essence itself. In any case, I would not trust someone in a fight if all they see in me is a citizen. Form does not replace content and essence. Law does not replace justice and for the sake of stability, a state cannot replace a nation. This is also the reason for the internal disintegration of America today. Half of what was there, the people do not understand this point. And so does a third of the people in Israel.

Really? All I claimed was that there are no values here, only national-ethnic identity and nothing more. I have no criticism of that, and I completely agree that there shouldn't be anything beyond that. The implications for America and its disintegration are as far from the truth as the fall from the hero.
And by the way, Americans are definitely willing to die for America even today. I wouldn't recommend anyone declare war on them. What they're tired of is dying for others and being the world's policeman, and rightly so.

Our mourning has turned into a violin, our elegy into a dance, and our drinking into joy. And by the way, it seems to me that it is only the Republican half who is willing to die for America. But the Democrats, who are in fact the majority (although they achieved this majority by absorbing immigrants who, as long as they have not assimilated into American culture, are not yet part of the American people), are tirelessly undermining the concept of the people in general through the PC presses and the reaction to the fact that Trump's election is temporary. Therefore, my prophecy about the disintegration of America in the near future and I hope I am mistaken. And I also justify and support their not dying for others. (And it seems to me that I have even justified them in the past for their lack of intervention in the ears of the rabbi in the event that he himself did not agree to this lack of intervention). As long as they do not deceive and lie that each nation will take care of its own interests.

Continuing with what you wrote above that ”There is no such thing as a Jewish state except perhaps in a national sense (which itself is devoid of any value content, except for the ethnicity of the residents)”. Elsewhere you wrote that the concept of Jew is a halakhic concept. And Judge Barak wrote regarding the interpretation of the concept of a Jewish state: “At the center of them is the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel”. According to this, there is a halakhic-value content to the Jewishness of the state in the sense that everyone who is considered a Jew according to halakhic law is entitled to immigrate to Israel. Beyond that, do you think it is appropriate for the state to be a Jewish state? And if so, in what sense?

This is not a value content but an ethnic one. This is a country that exists for Jews and therefore only they are entitled to immigrate to it. It is like asking about the value dimension that exists in a club for men who are 1.78 m tall, which only such men are allowed to enter. Beyond that, I ask who are these “Jews” who are allowed to immigrate? What is your definition? This is an ethnic definition only, without any value dimension or even a cultural one.
This reminds me of what I once wondered about the Ri”g method that light sacrifices are from the property of the owner. And I wondered in what sense they are from the property of the owner, since they must be sacrificed. To that I was told that it is in the sense that a woman can be consecrated in them. But this is of course not an answer. The possibility of consecration is a result of the fact that they are from the property of the owner, but I am asking in what sense they are from the property and not what are the implications of this determination. This is just an example, and it should be extended to Toba, of course.

But if the above club were intended for men who are 1.78 meters tall or for anyone who has donated a kidney in their lifetime, wouldn't that be considered some kind of value dimension of the club? (Donating a kidney is likened to someone who converts according to Halacha, which is an act with halachic value significance). It could also be said that the men who are 1.78 meters tall must be descendants of someone who donated a kidney in their lifetime (another value aspect of the club). In essence, it turns out that this club is a club for kidney donors and their descendants who are 1.78 meters tall.

Indeed. And that's exactly what I wrote, that in the essential sense there is nothing here beyond ethnicity (because Judaism itself, according to them, does not include values, but only the implication of allowing them to come to the country - their entry into the club) and therefore it is exactly similar to the example of the men who are 1.78 meters tall. If we were to talk about a Jew as someone who donated a kidney or someone who is committed to value A or B, that would introduce essential content. Without that, there is only ethnicity.

But even according to them, a Jew is someone who converted halakhically (took upon himself the burden of Torah and commandments = performed a moral act like someone who donated a kidney) or a descendant of someone who converted halakhically (whether he converted in person or received the Torah at Mount Sinai, which is a kind of conversion). If it were just a question of ethnicity, someone who is not a descendant of a Jew would not be allowed into the club (even if he converted and took upon himself the burden of Torah and commandments). Besides, according to what you said, I didn't understand whether you want the state to remain a Jewish state, or whether it neither increases nor decreases because it is devoid of moral significance anyway.

In their opinion, accepting the mitzvot is accidental and casual. There is nothing substantial about it, and certainly not value-based. It's just that in the past, Judaism was defined in terms of values, but in their opinion this is a mistake. Therefore, today they will tell you that a Jew is someone who defines himself as a Jew and does not need to convert properly. It's like a club for children of kidney donors who don't think it's appropriate to do so.
I would be happy for her to remain Jewish because I also feel comfortable living among my people (even if they are not of my religion). But I don't see it as a value but rather a necessity. I also want the country to prosper economically because it is our need.