I was just summarizing the paragraphs. But OK, we don't have to accept what it all really says, just get some surface impressions, and go with that, interpeted according to our understanding of other passages.
I don't like the way you worded this, as if I don't accept some of what it says. I accept ALL of what it says and you believe you accept all that it says. The difference between you and me isn't that you accept what it says and I don't. That's ridiculous. No, the difference between you and me is that I allow for the possibility that it isn't meant to be interpreted in a wooden, literal fashion and you don't.
And if in fact this passage about Israel - the ethnic group - have many other passages which say the same things? What then?
I think you are not getting the point I was making. So, I will quote the passage that speaks of the fulfillment of the Jeremiah 31 prophecy and try to show you what I was getting at.
Hebrews 8:6 But
now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
In order to see my point, what I would like you to focus on here is not the OT text itself that Paul (I assume he is the author of Hebrews) was quoting (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but what Paul's understanding was of the prophecy. What can be seen just before he quotes the prophecy is that he related the prophecy directly to the establishment of the new covenant when it replaced the old covenant.
So far you have not even acknowledged that the new covenant has already been established and I see that as a major problem in your view. This text says it "was established upon better promises". That means it is already established. And, how could it not be? We know the old covenant with all its commandments and rituals like animal sacrifices was made obsolete and is no longer in effect, right? Scripture teaches that. How could the old covenant no longer be in effect without having been replaced by the new covenant? Paul indicated here that the new covenant replaced the faulty old covenant. So, that means he was saying the prophecy was fulfilled upon the establishment of the new covenant and that was established already long ago by the blood of Christ.
So, my point then is that we should accept that this NT text says that the prophecy was fulfilled upon the establishment of the new covenant which replaced the faulty old covenant long ago. That should be our starting point - accepting that Paul knew what he was talking about in Hebrews 8:6-13. If you're not willing to use that as your starting point then you're not going to be able to be objective when trying to interpret what the text means.