The firstborns rejection:
For the sake of the argument lets just assume that kikes are edomites
>>21224927 which through the Kennites relate back to Cain, then we find a very commong theme (even if you deny the ethnic lineage we will clearly see a narrative theme connecting all these)
Cain was the first born, yet it was Abel that was favored, although the first born is usually the one having the inheritence. You could make a point about Cain not being the son of Adam but the serpent, but thats rather irrelevant.
Cain kills Abel, and Seth takes his place. We then get to Abraham. Here Ishmael is the first born, from his maiden Hagar. Yet it is Isaac, the second child that he had with his wife Sarah that was favored and the heir, again the firstborn losing his rightful claim. Ishmael became the arabs, and we could assume they mixed with Canaan in at least part.
Either way, we get then to Isaac and his children. Esau was the first born of the twins, yet sold his birthright to Jacob, seething after realizing it was a bad deal and trying to murder Jacob to gain his rights back. While Esau and Jacob made up with another we see the jews of today still engaging in this, trying to murder the heir, christians, in order to gain the right they forsook
We skip to the time of Christ. Edomites infiltrated Judeah and its people, weaseled their way into the institutions and overtook the faith. "We did it" they thought, finally they have their rightful claim back, just for Jesus to declare that they are wicked tennants, and that the kingdom is taken from them, and given to people better suited.
Their entire history seems to be the vain effort of forcing God to approve of them, while they are too prideful to approve of Gods ways
But its said
>I will have mercy on whom I have mercy 