Supporters of current Israeli policies regarding the Temple Mount argue that the state has a fundamental responsibility to maintain order and ensure freedom of access for all religious groups. From this perspective, the government's actions are not aimed at a takeover but are necessary measures to manage security in an area prone to volatility. Proponents emphasize that Israel has consistently upheld its commitment to protecting the rights of all worshippers, including Muslims, while also facilitating visits for Jewish pilgrims who wish to pray at their holiest site.
Those who back this approach point out that the site is central to Jewish history and identity. They argue that the current restrictions on Jewish prayer are discriminatory and that modernizing the management of the site is a matter of religious equality. By asserting a stronger presence, the state aims to prevent extremist groups from using the compound as a base for violence. This strategy is viewed as a proactive effort to stabilize the area rather than an attempt to alter the religious character of the mosque.
For the Israeli government, managing the site involves balancing complex domestic political pressures with international obligations. Supporters believe that the state must remain firm in its sovereignty to prevent the site from becoming a vacuum for radicalization. They argue that the criticism from Jordan is often politically motivated and fails to acknowledge the practical security challenges that Israeli police face on a daily basis while patrolling the compound.
Moving forward, advocates for this position suggest that a more inclusive management model is the only way to ensure long-term peace. They maintain that as long as the site is treated as a flashpoint for conflict, the potential for disruption remains high. By asserting control and ensuring security, the state hopes to create a more predictable environment that allows for peaceful coexistence among all visitors.