I come across stuff like this alot:

I think that a Jerusalem at peace would be impossible. The Jews and Muslims increasingly hanker for a piece of this rock, and the politics of settlement and anti-settler violence in Jerusalem and other areas of the West Bank/JudeaSamaria are destined to amplify the din for generations to come. This will continue unabated in any non-Jewish-majority-favoring demarcative status quo – one-state, two-state, three-state, four-state.

Plus, if Christians (who have no dog in the Temple Mount fight) can fight again and again – for over a millenia – over denominational control of sections of the same church, then I can imagine Sunnis and National-Haredi bloodily fighting in the streets of Jerusalem surrounding the Temple Mount for years on end.

It is ultimately a "heart-and-mind" issue, one which is distributed among almost all Abrahamic monotheists. Those who attach an immense emotional weight to a particular place or thing will fight to the death with rivals over the control of such entities. Prior to 1948, religion hardly played a role in the Arab-Hebrew rivalry over the strip of land which consisted the Jewish portion of the partition; around 1967, it became a conflict with extremely-heightened religious implications. 

So to appeal to such human rights principles as freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and observance of the laws of war when those who engage in bloody rivalries are not state agents, but are still belligerent ideological actors in the conflict is, ultimately, a futile exercise. Even those who say that the "good Jews" are "righteously" combating with the "bad Jews" are showing their ignorance of the ongoing schism between Judaism in the diaspora – one which celebrates being in a semi-assimilated minority – and Judaism in Israel – one which celebrates being in the majority; they are ignorant of why the increasingly-native religious Jews in Israel are gradually, angrily tuning out a naturally-implacable diaspora and turning their eyes and ears to Jerusalem and the hinterland with every passing generation. I don’t think that those who praise anti-war protesters and anti-settler activists – even those who do identify as Jewish – understand how different of a mentality that a religious-majority status can imbue upon those who gain from, and wish to advance, the state privilege of (Orthodox) Judaism.

Being Orthodox in Israel, I assume, makes it easier to say "fuck the West and fuck Christianity" without receiving an extensive amount of criticism, just as it is in Muslim majority countries. When Jews who have lived for generations in the Western world and its plethora of cultures encounter reports of sectarian violence in Jerusalem involving Haredim or residential violence in Hebron involving angry, edgy settler families, I don’t think they realize, or are prepared to realize, that those who count themselves among the Haredim and settlers are not like the Jewish minorities in the United States and Europe. Being in a land of your preferred religious majority, you can be much more religiously bigoted and belligerent, and much more publicly outspoken for the advancement of such sentiments. One can’t fault religious Jews for such attitudes and expressions, of course, without criticizing similar outbursts and outrages from Muslims and Christians in both the past and present; it is ultimately up to those who do not have vested interests in the advancement or destruction of either religion to work out a long-term process for ending religious hostilities – and no, it won’t be through the seeking of immediate peace, which is never a lasting or suitable peace.

But at least the person who wrote the above comment also noted the occurrence of Temple Denial among Arabic-speaking residents:

P.S.: I don’t think that reintegration of the Palestinian diaspora into Israel should be brought up until at least after 2067, 100 years after the Six-Day War. By that time, I’m fairly certain that the Jewish population in the West Bank will have increased to over 1M, and a more numerically-equitable agreement or status quo can proceed between the two sides of the conflict. 

Of course, the 2060s are the period which would be most acceptable for an apocalypse, according to Sir Isaac Newton.