According to your view, does it make sense to control the temple mount without building there a temple?

Otherwise, what do you think should happen there once we make it a part of Israel?

Clarifying:

2. Should the temple mount remain an empty area where nobody is allowed to step? Should the existing mosque be demolished? Should any other structure be built there?

Do you see a similar moral attitude in the bible about the second temple?

In this case, what would you say that came first: the building (or reconstruction) of the temple, or a reforming of the morals?

And, if we consider the role of Koresh in these happenings, were his actions a natural or a super-natural event?

The reason I introduced Koresh into the discussion was because in his case an earthly political action and the desired religious operation were happening together.

On the practical, political level, would you also say that the decree of Koresh was essential in the events that led to the (re)construction of the temple?

Is it correct to say that the behavior of the jewish people had an influence on the actions of Koresh, either from a religious or a political level?

decree of Koresh?
actions of Koresh?

zeshesham@netscape.net seems to be invalid
Thanks