Rabbi Yehuda Glick, the target of an attempted assassination in Jerusalem on Wednesday, is described thus in the Australian press:
1) "... a far-right Israeli religious activist... part of a movement to grant Jews permission to pray at the site known to them as Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, which houses the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, in occupied East Jerusalem." (Attack puts holy city on edge, Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Reuters/SMH, 31/10/14)
2) "... a leading campaigner for prayer rights for Jews at the sacred site known to them as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary." (Closure of sacred site 'an act of war', Robert Tait, Telegraph/SMH, 1/11/14)
3) "... a Jewish activist who wants Jews to pray at the complex. At present, Israel allows Jews to visit... but not pray." (Day of rage engulfs Jerusalem, John Lyons, The Australian, 1/11/14)
Absent further inquiry, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Glick was little more than an advocate for religious freedom.
In fact, he's the former director of The Temple Institute, an outfit which declares that:
"Geo-politically, the Temple Mount has to be cleared of the Dome of the Rock and the mosques which are presently located upon it before the physical rebuilding of the Holy Temple can begin. Many scenarios can be imagined which would accomplish this, the most promising, and not necessarily the most far-fetched, would entail Moslem recognition of the Mount as the intended location for the rebuilt Temple." (Frequently asked questions, templeinstitute.org)
Puts rather a whole new construction on the matter, know what I mean?