Israel's authorized nationalism and the universality of the particular

Comment published on New York Times online blog, in response to op-ed essay, "The Jewish state's nation-state bill non-scandal," 8/10/18:

The problem is here: “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” What is wrong with that? It identifies the nation-state of Israel, which is 20% Palestinian, with the "nationality" of the Jews. Compare this to France and the United States, where such declarations are constitutionally impossible. No one ethnic group that can claim exclusive title to American nationality.  

At stake precisely is whether the state of Israel really (and legally) belongs to all of its citizens (who ideally are all its residents) or only to those who are Jewish.  

As for the idea of Jewish national self-determination, it was achieved on this territory some while ago. What can it mean to assert it now? "Zionism" no longer designates a national liberation movement; it now indicates the ideological defense of a national security fortress state.  Nationalism always rests on an implicit logic by which the nation's security is identified with questions about its identity.

Do we even need nationalism and collective self-determination? This is far from clear. Maybe a nation-state should just be a political community united by a government belonging to its residents and citizens, and not the expression of a grand desire for the imaginary self-realization of a particular group.  

Let alone based on the late modern idea that some groups are oppressed as a group and politics or wars of liberation can rectify this. Lying at the basis of modern nationalist movements, this idea has past its expiry and should be mourned.