Don't insert yourself into Jewish people's mentions to proselytize, for two important reasons.
1) It's a violation of consent. You were not invited to missionize.
2) We might QT you and embarrass you by pointing out how dumb your interpretations are. Here we go: https://twitter.com/DMcG_007/status/1254085255885176832

First off, your translation sucks. "Pierced" is nowhere in there whatsoever. The word is
מחלל
It could mean "slain", as a soldier in combat. It's translated here sometimes as 'wounded', but 'pierced' is way beyond just a stretch. It's fanciful.

Importantly, in translation, the nuance and shades of meaning are lost. The word you're using to mean 'pierced' can also mean desecrated, defiled, desanctified. Made unholy. It can, as a noun, mean someone denied the priesthood.

He is desecrated by what? Our (the people of Israel's) transgressions. Okay. But the word is 'pesha', which is usually translated as a trespass. 'Aveira' is a transgression. Why does this matter?

Because there are shades of meaning to the Hebrew words. 'Pesha' is not just any old doing bad. It's rebellion against God. It's denying God's sovereignty and centrality in the lives of the people. It's a particular *kind* of trespass that is motivated by active rejection.

Then you've got "crushed for our iniquities". The word translated as 'crushed' means suppressed, subjugated, depressed. 'Iniquities' is 'avone', another specific Hebrew word that means a sin done out of moral failing.

Pesha and avone are frequently accompanied in the Torah by chata - that's the one usually translated as 'sin'. It means to miss the mark, to go astray. To veer off the path of correct behavior. It doesn't appear here. Isaiah leaves it out.

Isaiah isn't concerned about people sinning in everyday ways. He's not all worked up about our straying and missing the mark. He's upset about rebellion against God and moral failures. He's talking about a systemic abandonment of the covenant.

I bring this up because this is Isaiah's driving motivation, and it's another way that missionizing like this makes you look stupid. It's taking Isaiah out of context and ignoring the political and religious landscape he was peophecying in completely.

Isaiah was excoriating the aristocracy and political leadership of Jerusalem for rampant corruption and an insufficient faith in God. He was arguing that opposing the Assyrian empire through any worldly means was just demonstrating an insufficient trust in God.

Anyway, keeping that in mind, back to the text. "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him".
'Punishment' is sort of weird. The word means 'reproof' or 'chastisement'.

The same word can also mean 'morals' or 'ethics' the failures of which are Isaiah's other theme. Pretty juicy nuance and entendre there. 'Our peace' is shlomenu - a form of 'shalom'. Which, as @Delafina777 eloquently points out, is the *presence* of something, not absence.

It's not just an absence of strife and conflict, it's a presence of wholeness, a completion, a state of everything being right. His reproof returns us to a state of being complete.

And, finally, "by his wounds we are healed". 'Wounds', like 'pierced', is completely fanciful. It just isn't there. The word could be "bruises". But it could also be "friendship" or "companionship".

So yeah, sure, the 'old testament' looks like it's predicting Jesus, but only because the old testament is an interpretation and translation made explicitly and specifically for that purpose. It's not in the Hebrew though, and definitely not in Jewish interpretation.

And when you take a verse out of context, without nuance, with a strained translation of key words, with no understanding of the larger political and religious context and say "look at this obvious reference to Jesus!!1!" you just look dumb.