There's been plenty of slander to try to say they're more arab, but they're essentially close cousins.
Which leads one to believe, perhaps a large amount of the jews in the region simply moved on with the times with the new religion taking hold.
Essentially Israel/Palestine is a fight between cousins, and one side's inlaws who never actually came from the region but converted elsewhere.
So converts vs converts. Do the local converts have a say over the foreign converts?
The idea that land rights can be derived from the bible or spans of 1000s of years is silly, but the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine going back to 1945 is within living memory.
And it's pretty telling that you chose to say this to me and not the comment I replied to.
Don't fool yourself, you are repeating antisemitic slurs. The Jews in Israel never left, and Zionisim is something like 2,000 years old (it's as old the Babylonian exile). Israel is as far from "colony state" as you can get - it's literally the opposite, it's an example of the native people getting their own land back.
The goal of the genetic stuff is to point this split out, not delineate races.
Sadly though, this conflict is full of racism. The Gazans are described as "Arabs" and therefore undeserving of the land. If it turns out the Gazans are not Arabs, but also locals to the region, then what does that mean?