Separation of religion and state

Shalom Rabbi Michi
Before I came to ask you about religion and state, I read the article you wrote on the subject (“Jewish and Democratic…”), and I want to ask about what you wrote.
Let’s say I agree with you that separation will indeed solve problems in the areas of conversion and kashrut (for example) and will reduce the tension that exists in the need for the rabbinical establishment to “sweep” the decisions of the civil system.
Still, how will you deal with the fact that separating religion from state could create the inclusion of those “Israeli citizens” and in any case increase assimilation in the country, when there is recognition of the status of an Israeli citizen with civil regulations (without the question of who is a Jew, etc.) on the face of it, many Gentiles may become citizens, and create a danger of harming the Jewish majority and the fight against assimilation. See the entry on the United States, etc., where there is naturally a separation.
So it is true that people who are sons of a Jewish father immigrated from Russia and complicated us a bit, on the other hand Judaism was a defense and balancing mechanism. It is possible that if we adopt your proposal we will have 2 clear and very convenient lists to distinguish who is Jewish in the halakhic tests and who is not, on the other hand what use will 2 lists be to us if in the end our children choose not to regard these 2 lists as something valuable in their eyes. And in the test of results we have failed.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef permitted agunot with permits that other rabbis would not dare to permit. I think one of the beautiful things about Judaism is that it has the ability to choose the path of the Kola when, in balancing values, there is sometimes a question of the importance of preserving the national values ​​in Judaism versus the question of pure halakhic law. They permitted the entire Ethiopian community, converts from the Commonwealth of Nations, and more. Well, that’s fine, but in the end they kept the house.
Jabotinsky said, “You don’t conquer the mountain if there is no grave on the slope.” I think this can also be said in the context of the struggle to preserve the Jewish nation, the sacrifices in the field of halakhah for the sake of collective identity, sometimes a personal ideal and not a compromise in retrospect.
Therefore, for the Jewish people in this context, the assimilation of Judaism as a national value is infinitely more important than the definition of Judaism as a religion alone. History teaches that Judaism survived because of the unique combination of preserving Halacha at home and national concepts abroad.
Sometimes the enemy of the good is the best. It’s easy to point out problems. You have to see that the solutions are no worse than the models that preceded them. And in general, it’s hard for me to connect with the approach that conveys that my solution is good (or at least better) because the existing status quo has problems.
Your opinion.
Thank you very much.