Not necessarily...I think it's much more complicated that that. For example http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy.
Richards acknowledges that the work is likely to be controversial. “I’d anticipate some resistance to our conclusions in certain quarters,” he says. One way to reconcile his team’s findings with those of other researchers, he says, is to assume that the founders of the male Ashkenazi lineages were indeed originally from the Middle East, but that the maternal line arose in Europe much earlier. The European women then converted to Judaism after male Jews moved into the continent, establishing the Ashkenazi lineages that we see today. That suggestion fits with the contention of some historians that many women converted to Judaism across Mediterranean Europe during the so-called Hellenistic period between about 300 B.C.E. and 30 B.C.E.
It would make sense since the population that fled the ME would be far to small to sustain itself without conversions and marriage outside the faith.
I think the "tie" to Israel and Judah is more one of religious heritage than genetics, much like the Muslim tie to Mecca.
The problem with trying to determine "a measure of who has ancestors from "Palestine" is you really can't in any but an arbritrary way. People moved and migrated many times since the earliest recorded histories there and even the Israelites were not the original peoples. You have people who moved on, moved in and people who stayed - and changed with the succeeding invasions - converting to new religions in the process. For example, when Christianity became the dominant religion, many Jews converted. When Islam became the dominant religion many Christians and Jews converted. And those are just the main religions - not the many smaller groups. The peoples may not have changed, but their religious and cultural identities transformed. So given that - how can you determine who has a greater "tie" or "right" to be there?
