"Jewish Supercessionism"

Is this idea compatible with Dispensationalism?

I recently heard the term "Jewish Supercessionism". 

(Not just "Supercessionism" - but " 'Jewish' Supercessionism".) 

So the idea is not that non-Jews have replaced Jews, but that the Promise was experienced by a group of Jews among the Jews, first.

It was experienced by Messiah's ekklesia - His 'called-out ones' - His assembly - by Jews among the Jews, before anyone else experienced it.

In support of that idea (the idea that the Promise might not be experienced by all Jews but only by a group of Jews among the Jews, first), it is claimed that the idea already existed in first-century Israel: in fact, it was 'the' prevalent idea in first-century Israel. 

Examples include: 

The Qumran Community (where the Dead Sea scrolls were found). 

Whoever the community at Qumran were (maybe they were Essenes) it is evident from their writings that they believed Jerusalem's Temple-system had become too corrupt and that their own community was therefore forming a sort of 'true Israel' within Israel. 

They were striving to be the 'true Jews' among the Jews who alone would be accounted worthy to participate in Messiah's kingdom when He would come. 

They even practised a form of immersion baptism, as part of their qualifying-process. 

With the threat from Rome always looming in the first century AD, different groups within Israel each had their own opinions about urgent Prophetic themes like: 

When Messiah's kingdom might appear (they had a sense from Daniel that it had to be soon); 

What it might look like (there was no single idea about that, in first-century Israel - there were numerous different concepts); 

What (if anything) they should do to bring it about; and

Who in Israel might qualify to be part of it. 

Pharisees thought one thing. (And among the Pharisees there were at least two different schools of thought.)

The Scribes thought another. 

Sadducees another. 

Zealots had still another answer. 

The chief priests another. 

There were also lawyers.

And who knows how many communities like at Qumran. 

Each 'party' had its own version of 'Jewish Supercessionism' (its own idea about 'who' in Israel could qualify to participate in the 'kingdom', and its own concept about what the 'kingdom' itself might look like for Israel). 

I can readily see how well John the Baptist fit into such a political/religious climate. He came by birth from the temple-priesthood system. But he came suddenly on the scene from the wilderness warning that being ethnically children of Abraham wasn't going to cut it. Repentance would be necessary - or else Messiah's work could result in a fiery experience rather than a Holy Ghost experience, even for ethnic sons of Abraham! 

And like both the Temple and the Qumran communities, John also practised baptism - a baptism of repentance.

But he went one step further than them all. He didn't just talk 'about' the Messiah - he actually identified Him for Israel: JESUS of Nazareth. 

Even Jesus submitted to John's baptism. He Himself began announcing that Jews should now 'repent' because 'the time' was 'fulfilled' and 'the kingdom of God' was 'at hand'.

He told parables to explain what the kingdom would look like for Israel. 

He warned that not all Jews would enter it. 

He baptised (though it was His disciples and not Jesus Himself who did the baptising). 

He called all this 'the gospel' - the gospel 'of the kingdom' - that is, the announcement of the kingdom of God - of Israel's hope - the Promise. 

The New Testament's own claim is that 'it' (the New Testament; the gospel) 'is' the answer to all of those questions which first-century Jews were scrambling to answer. 

The King is here: Jesus. 

This is what the kingdom looks like: the gospel-scheme (inclusive of a future Second Coming)

This is who in Israel can enter it: those who believe in Jesus, who receive Him, who are born from above. 

The Twelve, a total of 120 (12x10) had to be in Jerusalem, to receive the initial Promise of the Spirit. The all-Jewish Messianic Body was launched. 

Only afterwards were Gentiles embraced into the same blessing. Without needing to become Jewish-Proselytes (to Moses' customs). 

So in a sense, one new 'humanity' was formed, in the Messiah, by faith in the Messiah, without Judaism - and irrespective of ethnicity. 

But it was experienced first in Israel, in Jerusalem, by Israelis among Israelis. As promised. 

So that idea is strongly loyal both to the identity of ethnic Israel in Prophecy; and to God's faithfulness in fulfilling it, isn't it. 

It's not " 'Hard' Supercessionism'.

It's not " 'Hard' Replacement Theology". 

It's not even "Covenant Theology" strictly speaking. 

It sounds more like a "Fulfilment Theology" of sorts.

Like "Inaugurated/Consummation Eschatology".

A "First Coming/Second Coming" type of thing.

Is Dispensationalism compatible with that history? and with that take on the significance which the New Testament claims for itself in relation to Old Testament Promise and Prophecy?

Or would Dispensationalism critique that somehow.