Seems that
contemporary Jewish historians disagree:
"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside
Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the
Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the
rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the
Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege,
Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt.
The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."
Thus:
The Romans and Jews destroyed the city and sanctuary.
The "people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:26).
Therefore, the Romans and Jews were the "people of the prince that shall come".
The Romans were the people of Messiah enlisted as His agents of judgment and destruction. (post #193)
The Jews were the people of Messiah under the old covenant.
Therefore, Messiah was the "prince that shall come". (Daniel 9:26)