Shrines: Ownership or Free Access?

In the 21st century, what matters more — territorial control or guaranteed access?

When analyzing arguments against establishing clear and final borders for Israel, two objections are raised most frequently: security concerns and religious shrines. Questions of defense and strategic stability are covered in other materials from the Metatron Project. Here, we focus on the second concern — the status of religious shrines and their accessibility.

We propose to examine this issue not through the lens of legal claims, but from the perspective of what works in the modern world. At the same time, we invite a broader reflection on a fundamental question: ownership or access?

Shrines Beyond Borders: Who Do They Belong To?

Religious shrines are sites that cannot be duplicated or relocated. Their value lies in their uniqueness, but also in their openness to those who seek them.

Religious and state borders rarely coincide. Millions of believers regularly make pilgrimages to places far from their countries, cultures, and even to jurisdictions with which their governments may be in conflict.

Examples:

• Church of the Holy Sepulchre – One of the most important Christian shrines, located in Israel, but the majority of pilgrims come from Europe, the Americas, and Africa.
• Al-Aqsa Mosque – The third-holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina, also located in Israel. It is managed by Muslim institutions and draws pilgrims from across the Muslim world, including countries that do not recognize Israel.
• Blue Mosque (Sultanahmet), Istanbul – Once a Christian basilica (Hagia Sophia), then a mosque, later a museum, and again a mosque. These transitions occurred peacefully, despite changes in religious affiliation.
• Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron – A key Jewish site located in an area partially administered by the Palestinian Authority, yet it remains a destination for Jewish pilgrims.
• Catholic churches in China, Orthodox monasteries in Egypt, Armenian churches in Turkey – all examples of shrines existing outside their confessional majority environments.

The conclusion is simple: a shrine does not have to belong to the religious majority of the state in which it is located. What matters is not ownership, but guaranteed access.

Ownership vs. Access: A Debate Already Resolved in Other Sectors

The argument “we cannot cede this territory because there is a shrine on it” stems from the idea that access is impossible without ownership. But in nearly every area of life, the modern world has decisively shifted toward access over possession. Economic models today prioritize flexibility, convenience, and availability over ownership.

• Software: Subscription models (Adobe, Microsoft 365, AutoDesk) have replaced one-time license purchases.
• Music and Film: Streaming services (Spotify, Netflix, YouTube Premium) have replaced physical or downloaded media.
• Housing: Renting often offers more comfort and flexibility than owning.
• Cars: Subscriptions, car-sharing, and ride-hailing services have reduced interest in owning vehicles, especially in large cities.
• Transport: Trains, metros, planes — we do not feel deprived of using shared systems, even if we only “own” a temporary right to access.

Many accept that a rental apartment may offer a better quality of life than one they could afford to buy. Ownership becomes an investment asset, while daily life depends on accessibility. Shrines follow the same logic: guaranteed access is more valuable than unstable claims of ownership.

Where Ownership Is Impractical by Nature

There are entire domains where ownership is either impractical or irrelevant. No one demands the privatization of public parks or insists on running a private metro line. Even the strongest proponents of private property don’t seek to own the infrastructure they rely on daily.

Examples:

• Trains and metros — publicly owned or operated via concessions, used by millions.
• Airspace and airports do not belong to passengers, yet remain accessible.
• High-speed internet — in the EU, providers lease shared fiber networks; in Southeast Asia (e.g., Thailand), operators insist on owning separate cables, creating visual chaos.

The denser the space, the less room for private ownership, and the greater the need for shared access. Some city centers now restrict private vehicles altogether. In such contexts, access models outperform ownership.

Ownership of Shrines as a Source of Conflict

History offers many examples where religious conflict was triggered by the desire to own or control a shrine. The blend of spiritual sentiment with territorial instinct — “this stone is mine” — has often fueled hostility rather than reverence.

At the same time, there are encouraging precedents. Jerusalem, despite its complexity, maintains access to shrines of multiple faiths. Thanks to carefully negotiated rules, longstanding agreements, and responsible oversight, access is preserved — even amid political tension.

This is the model of the future: not arguing over whose shrine is “truly authentic,” but ensuring safe, stable access for all. Not through surrender or compromise, but through clear and enforceable frameworks.

International Precedents: Access Without Sovereignty

Global practice offers numerous examples where access to religious shrines and sacred sites is granted without territorial ownership or full state control. The Vatican is a classic case: an enclave within Italy that holds sovereignty, yet welcomes thousands of pilgrims each day without visas or bureaucracy. On Greece’s Mount Athos, a unique regime operates – only male pilgrims are admitted, regardless of nationality, under rules set by the monastic community rather than the state. In India, the Lotus Temple belongs to the Baháʼí community, yet its doors remain open to people of all faiths. These examples all demonstrate that when clear rules are in place and the significance of a site is respected, access is possible without conflict, without claims, and without redrawing borders.

Counterarguments and Clear Responses

Critics of open-access models argue that security and order cannot be ensured without ownership. But this is a false equivalence. Control and regulation do not require sovereignty. International agreements, digital entry systems, biometric identification, and interfaith oversight bodies are already functioning in various contexts and can be expanded further.

Others ask: “What if one side blocks access in the future?” This concern is legitimate, and precisely why durable mechanisms of verification, monitoring, and guarantees are needed. These can include international observers, binding legal instruments, and digital oversight – all entirely compatible with the vision of the Metatron Project.

Another concern: How can shrines be maintained without ownership? But in practice, free access is not the same as “free of charge.” Millions of pilgrims and visitors generate consistent income through tickets, donations, service fees, and local commerce. These revenues fund site maintenance, security, restoration, and public health. A shrine becomes a sustainable public good only when it is truly open, accessible, and safe. It is not ownership that creates value – it is access.

Modern Logic as a Strategic Principle

If the world has embraced subscription models for software, entertainment, housing, and mobility, why not apply the same logic to sacred space?

If we can benefit from public goods without territorial conflict, then perhaps it’s time to extend that logic to shrines.

A shrine should not be held hostage by political control. It should serve as a place of connection for everyone.

That is why the Metatron Project proposes a new approach: protecting borders without abandoning universal human values. The goal is not to claim ownership of holy sites, but to guarantee free access to them on clear, secure, and legal grounds.

Our task is not to take a shrine away from another religion. Our task is not to impose our jurisdiction. Our task is to ensure free, safe, and lasting access. In the way it is expected in the 21st century. Because it helps prevent war. Because it makes Israel stronger, not only in its borders, but in its principles.