I also disagree with the assumption that Edomites moved to Palestine in 1948. The area that is now Israel was always inhabited mainly by Jews with a few Muslims. More Jews fled Europe and came in 1948 when Israel became recognized globally as the Jewish homeland.
In 1948 that territory, once called Canaan or Judea before the Ottoman Empire, was divided so that Jordan was to house Muslim people (this is about 80% of the whole area) after the establishment of the Jewish state (a tiny sliver). Unfortunately, Muslims from other countries around the world (not natives of Israel or Jordan) used it as an excuse for expansion of Islam and declared war on Israel the next day. Yassar Arafat, the first leader of the PLO was born in CAIRO Egypt.
Why? Maybe they wanted control of the Holy land so that their religion would 'win' and destroy evidence of any competing religions by killing them off? Remember the Crusades? It was to reclaim the Holy Land for Christians from the Muslims. So, that thought may not be far-fetched.
A number of local residents, both Christian and Muslim relocated at that time, and I know a few personally from college. It is a sad traumatic thing, like someone having to move because the new highway is going through, or the railroad is built. Such a change was an upheaval, but it was fair and legitimate. Many left to make new lives elsewhere. Anyone who was willing to be loyal to an Israeli state could stay. Israel just wanted a little slice of the pie, a place to call home.
Israel is in Israel fair and square. If anything, Amalek is trying to destroy that and re-write history to de-ligitimize Israel's independence. After the Romans and then the Byzantium Empire, the Crusades lost to the Ottoman Empire which eventually the British came to administer in the 1920s. Geopolitics for a small European country would prefer the area to stay unstable rather than become a prosperous member of the global community. But, tricks won't bring the Byzantine or Ottoman Empires back. The land has belonged to Israel over 5,000 years, and again legitimately since 1948.
So you are still asking who is Edom. Rabbi Ginsburgh wrote that much of Torah study shows the matter of reconciling opposites. Rectification and repair of what is broken. While there is good and evil, the point is not to crush garden variety evil into the ground, or even long-held animosities but the highest good is to first try to repair it.
On the other hand, there is also another level of evil that is not handled in that way. There is an overwhelming enemy, Amalek, who is out to kill for no reason other than to annihilate Israel. You may be speaking of this. Amalek would be the archetype enemy which actually requires the hand of the Divine as well as political will in order to utterly destroy it.
Edom (meaning Red) was a people supposedly descended from Essau, the TWIN brother of Yacov. Essau who was also the FAVORITE son of Isaac, one of the Patriarchs of the Jewish people. As a brother and a twin at that, by any accounts Essau would be family "one of us" except for the fact that it took a series of miracles and considerable cunning to keep him from killing his brother Yacov. The picture of red stew with red lentils was likely a literary device to link the red and hairy Essau to Edom,as all Rabbincal commentary since Torah has indicated Essau is Edom.
Further post-Biblical commentaries claim Edom is one half of the split kingdom of clay and iron Daniel referred to as the last dual kingdom of the statue, but that kingdom isn't actually named other than it being fragmented into a number of pieces with two major sides like iron and clay.
The question is who is Edom now, is it part of the iron or clay? Most consider Edom and Amalek the same, although there is a tradition of a 'good' part of Edom and Essau. There is a lot of speculation on these things based on who keeps trying to kill Jews over the past 2,000 years. No one knows for sure at present, who is Edom and who is Amalek, as no one is an acknowledged prophet to Israel. Christianity and Islam have their own agendas. Neither are their prophets recognized as valid. So it is doubtful the Jewish Encyclopedia even in 1925 was quoting Romans and Hebrews. :) Hope this helped you answer your question and test its assumptions.