The ethical status of compulsory conscription

So in your opinion, someone who has a right (a very obscure concept, including the concept of property you mentioned, I don't understand except in the social-public sense) that does not derive its power from the state in their opinion (and it is not difficult to find such a thing in a country as young and full of many diverse rights meanings as ours) and does not wish to receive anything from the state in which they are located can and has the right not to be a part of it, with all that this implies.

I immediately think of the Neturi Karta, who I mentioned, who even have a plan (which is delusional in my opinion) on how to manage from a security perspective if the state is abolished.

There is a widespread claim among the extreme Haredi public (I don't like such definitions, but still) that the founders of the state created the problem of the Jewish state and they (the Haredim) are not obligated to participate in its solution.

And now I think that the Jews (religious Haredim and other vegetables who derive their right to the land from various spiritual reasons) think that they have a right to the Land of Israel and all its resources naturally (and there are some) and taking all these resources in order to establish a state and maintain it creates obligations in relation to those Jews who think that their right to the land does not stem from the consent (or non-consent) of the UN, etc. to establish a state.

I don't think this is a simple problem because I consider myself, for example, a liberal and I don't like government intervention at all (in all issues from taxes to drugs) but regarding the protection of Jews, my opinion is very positive, but I suddenly realized that in the army I do something for one reason (protecting Jews) in a framework that is completely one thing (protecting the government or something like that, I haven't figured out what that means yet) and lately these two things don't always lead to one action, and I ask myself whether it is even a mitzvah to do this within the army.

So maybe logically it's very simple (not practical of course) but with so many details and items and rights and owners I don't see how to navigate my rights.

By the way, correction, I meant human rights and not civil rights of course.

By the way, from a halakhic perspective, I meant in cases other than war, etc.

Another question is whether a state or body in general is permitted to establish (by a non-unanimous majority) a civil society framework (army) that is not consistent with human rights (the risk ordinance above).

I don't understand what's bothering you. Things are completely simple as I explained (and are in no way related to liberalism). What should be added here? Indeed, if Neturi Karta want to stand on their own (neither from your own nor from your own) - it's appropriate to give them that and good luck to them.

If you could address the last question

I already answered.
What here is not in line with human rights? An order to risk life does not contradict anything, as long as it is necessary to protect the state and its citizens. It is clear that this is a risk that an ordinary person would not take. Why would he take it if he was not at risk. This is not about taking risks as a hobby. But if your life were threatened, you would definitely do it. Therefore, the state as a collective that is at risk can demand that its citizens risk themselves (in a proper and equal manner) to protect it.
Of course, those who do not want to do so are not partners and are exempt. Neither duties nor rights.

Rape like David?

???

Therefore, it is appropriate to develop a social and political alternative that can accommodate within its areas of control even those who do not recognize or are interested in its authority.

Because in the current situation, an individual or group cannot detach themselves from society and its laws without leaving their area of residence.

This should be an international movement that recognizes the personal right of individuals to themselves and the non-imposition of these individuals on society.

I believe that in many countries (especially ours with its unusual diversity) there will be those who are interested in shedding the burden of society and the rights it grants.

I think I will be one of the first and not the last who is not willing to sacrifice myself for whims or political decisions that are not to my liking.

Excellent. You are welcome to develop, and good luck.