As an example, God made both Jacob and Esau, and he declared the elder would serve the younger. Neither one had been born yet and neither one had done anything good or bad to merit a reward or to deserve condemnation. But God loved Jacob and he hated Esau, and he made them to be the fathers of two different peoples
But what does it mean that he "hated" the man Esau? ( Let's set aside the nation for a moment. )
In a Hebrew household, where a father has a firstborn and a second-born, the firstborn is always to be given a double portion of the inheritance, and the remaining sons were to serve him as something like a chieftan or prince, executor of the family will, etc.
Therefore, I don't see "serving" as some kind of condemnation of being a sinner damned to hell (eg: Jesus chose to serve, too ).
The pattern is true in all Hebrew families of the time; and was later codified into the Mosaic law, esp. denying the father a right to pick a younger firstborn among different wives for this honorary task. Deuteronomy 21:15-16.
The eldest son was given a double portion of wealth in order to be able to take care of the Mother and look out for the younger brothers when the father should die, and this honor and duty came according to birth order.
In the Case of Jacob and Esau, as individuals, one of them had to take the position. There was no wellfare in those days, or insurance, or anything else to care for mother (and sometimes little children) when the father passes away.
Secondly, we have to take into account that God had made another promise; eg: that one made way back in Genesis to Adam and Eve, (Genesis 3:15, and echoed in 1Timothy 2:15), for the promise/prophecy is that ultimately there would be one seed that should crush the serpent....
As brothers, Jacob and Esau couldn't both morally be the father of the same child, by the same woman, so that the promised messiah (the head of the body, the Church) couldn't be fathered by them both in a normal way. The child, itself, first
had to come through one of them. And this exclusive selection of fathers continued down to the day of Jesus, for the promise continued through Judah, etc. ( but excluded Onan and Er -- who both die on account of trying to prevent the birth of any children, and would have damned us all if they had succeeded !!!!!! )
What I'm getting at is that some *arbitrary* decisions have to be made, and these decisions would still have had to be exclusive even if future knowledge/prophecy did not have any great evils at all. Nor do I know what "would have happened" if the places of Esau and Jacob had somehow been reversed. But, arbitrarily, one of them had to carry out the firstborn's family duty, and one had to carry on the promise of the messiah.
Given that, now consider that we only really know what the prophecy actually says.
Genesis 25:23.
The struggling in the womb was not on account of illness, but on account of there being two children. And, so she learns incidentally that the the normal but arbitrary line of inheritance was going to be upset by the wrestling children. God does not even say he will force one to come out of the womb first, nor name the children, but only says that whichever child succeeds in coming out first -- that child will serve the one that follows it.
But note! nothing in the original prophecy to the mother would have even suggested that one of her sons was damned. They would fight, and one would be stronger, and God would somehow make the child who succeeds in getting out first, to serve the one who comes out second.
Whoop te do. Big deal (NOT!) except that dad's not going to believe mom's prophecy.
Therefore: I don't think either Esau or Jacob was maliciously hated -- it's just that one of them HAD to do an arbitrary task, and God HAD to arbitrate between these two men as to whom would do the task , because God's promise was involved in every generation with exclusion happening between every pair of brothers.
With that in mind: Now consider critiquing my earlier quote about Leah and Rachel; where scripture says "Leah was hated.", and think about what "hate" actually is in scripture.
Think about it: in terms of salvation history, her being hated is laughable if it is taken to mean malice and wrath. For it is LEAH not Rachel who bore Judah, and Leah is a grand-mother to the messiah, not to mention that the holier tribes (AAron, Levi) are also LEAH's children; and she received all this very willingly through Jacob who is said to have "hated!" her -- ( but obviously loved her in bed ... for Jacob obviously had lots kids with her even after Rachel was in bed too... Genesis 29:30-31)
Leah really takes the whole prize in salvation history! For: Rachel acts like the fornicator and adulterer, who would ironically soil her prize by being busy menstruating on idols she stole from her father, being the first woman to bring idol worship into Israel. Blood sacrifice by bottoms up ... and as usual Rachel protects the idols rather than the idols protecting her....
So... all I can conclude from that word "Hate" is that Leah was loved less by Jacob than was Rachel in a passionate sense. ( Oh! how fleeting is beauty, though! )
But if Jacob really hated Leah, and loved Rachel so much more, in the English sense of Hate -- it's rather inconceivable that Jacob buries Rachel in the dirt on the road to Bethlehem, Ephrata, after she dies in childbirth giving a bad/half despairing name "benoni" to the tribe of Benjamin. ( Paul's tribe. With a notoriety of being nearly exterminated by the rest of Israel as a tribe for heinous sin, later in history).
Jacob never even goes back nor commands anyone to take her bones to the cave at mamre in the promised land where all the patriarchs demanded to be buried. No, nothing for Rachel -- but Leah is there, Abraham Sarah, Isaac Rbekah, and .... Jacob -- but Rachel is left wailing for her children, for they are no more.
So, Hate can show up to be a very shallow word. Hate is more associated with worldly mammon, or fleeting beauty, or especially honor and jealousy for public display, (forced separation), than in substantive differences of the innermost heart leading to damnation; for I simply can't believe Jacob wanted Leah to burn in hell.... although scripture testifies he "hated" her.
So: Let me ask you, and it's somewhat rhetorical/reflection -- but feel free to answer if you want, or to disagree if that suits you:
What does it mean that God Hated Esau???
Was Esau truly blessed or cursed during his life?
Was Esau cut off from the promised land, or did he still enter and leave it freely for as long as he lived?
Is there any sign that God was absolutely merciless to him?
Who took care of Rebekah, the mother, in her old age, was it Esau or Jacob?
Who was forgiving of their brother, Esau or Jacob? Genesis 33:4, Genesis 33:9-10, Genesis 33:16
Now: Nations are not "saved", but they can carry a promise; and since, therefore, the election of a nation is not the same as whether or not an individual goes to heaven or hell ( eg: it's not the nation that is saved with you in it, but rather you that are saved for the nation in the world to come ).
So: I'd like to focus on Esau as an individual separately from the sins of his nation(s).
Consider: Abraham is not damned on account of Hagar, Ishmael, etc. or the sinful nations that come from him (and Edom is one of them...!!!!) Therefore: We can't call Esau damned on account of Edom alone, either.
But: I think -- very, very, clearly, the grace of God came through Esau the man. Not God's wrath, and final cursing -- but his grace and forgiveness. ( cf: Genesis 32:30 with Genesis 33:10. )
So:
Can you show me that God hated Esau the man, in the sense of *wrath*, rather than as a father disciplines his son -- I admit he gave Esau hardship and temptation, and, yes, a permanent loss -- but God also rewarded him for overcoming his own sin and bound him up. ( For example, are not the sheep that Jacob gave Esau, also a gift from God? )
Esau is a hunter, not a shepherd, and if one knows the lands of Seir (which are perhaps also Isaac's, and one of his sons was to inherit them ??) -- who was better suited to Seir? Is it really, then, a curse that Esau was given that land from his father (or God??) ?
What difference, then, does the prophecy make regarding Esau and Jacob, when understood as individuals, when it comes to heaven and hell, as opposed to what it means in terms of a preferential place of sanctity and honor upon the earth, and whether they would get along?
What evidence do we have that Esau is actually damned? What level of Hate can be proven?
I also know, that if they try to abuse my honoring of the wider meaning of "all" -- we can always bring up exactly who is meant by "all men" in Romans 5:12; "For all have sinned". 
Continuting on....