There is a big difference when a hostile occupying power, hostile to the religion of the holy site, is controlling the access to the holy site. The security needs to be handled with much more delicacy. As stated, there are less intrusive ways to provide security.
Bullshit. There is no difference. If security is needed, security is needed. Its just a freaking metal detector. Walk through it. It affects your religious freedom not one iota. There is no need for delicacy. There is a need to protect people from dying.
And if there are "less intrusive" ways of providing security, Israel should consider them, as soon as Mecca, and the Vatican, etc, etc, change up to those less intrusive ways. Meantime, its a clear, easy, effective, functional system. Why not use it?
And Israel has displayed absolutely NO hostility to the religion of holy site (WHICH BTW WAY IS AT LEAST AS MUCH JEWISH AS IT IS MUSLIM!) In fact, it is the opposite. Israel has deliberately negated its own rights to religious freedom in order to placate the Muslims.
Of course Israel has displayed hostility to the religion of the holy site, they are constantly threatening to take it over.
Actually, Israel is the responsibility that can assume the role of protecting the site. Across Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, your Islamic terrorist heroes have a demonstrated history of destroying every bit of history and culture they come in contact with including their own.
Here Are the Ancient Sites ISIS Has Damaged and Destroyed
Other than an identifiable cabal of people who share your failings, I can't think of anyone who would think Islamic terrorists are an appropriate group to put in responsible care.