Happy new year to you too, Peter.
In effect, the hoped for restoration of national Israel did not take place. Israel did not repent either before or after the judgment of AD 70 and so was not, in Paul’s terms, restored to the rich root of the patriarchs. National Israel lost its inheritance in the promise. Therefore, the church became overwhelmingly a Gentile movement.
To that extent, Jewish-nationalist expectations were thwarted—including those expressed by Jesus and Peter.
The nations put their hope not in Israel but in the living creator God and in the root of Jesse, who one day would rule over them in place of the many lords of the pagan world (Rom. 15:12; cf. Eph. 1:11-12).
If Paul is the author, the argument about inclusion in the politeia of Israel in Ephesians 2:11-22 assumes the continuing relevance of a being-reformed Israel, with which Gentile believers are “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6). The “being-reformed” also includes becoming a new type of temple (Eph. 2:21-22). Whether Paul expected the temple in Jerusalem to be demolished is unclear, but he certainly thought that it was becoming obsolete. If Paul had been writing any the end of the century, he would no doubt have constructed his argument differently, taking account of the declining relevance of Jewish Christianity. But he wasn’t.