The US, Canada, Australia, NZ can be considered settler's colonies much more than Israel since the europeans who settled there had anything whatsover with those places.
I would suspect most of the Israelites that moved there are actually western/european descent, whereas I would not be surprised if a lot of the Arabs there had actual ancient Jewish genes.
All that aside, are we really discussing who can claim ownership to a land based on ancient history, rather than human impact of change of ownership?
Ethnically there is no real difference, to the point that a disguised Jew or Muslim, provided they know the other language well, can blend in without any problem, even for longer periods. Which is a big problem for catching terrorists.
And it's even the case that when it comes to habits, even religious habits, there's a lot shared between Jews and Muslims that does not actually date back to ancient Judaism or come from Islam, but are for example not-that-old Iraki or Yemeni customs.
The region was named after the tribe, not the other way around
It is also true that Xinjiang was once peopled by the Han thousands of years ago, before the Uighers arrived, but that does not at all affect my understanding of the relationship between the Han and Uighers today. Why should it? It doesn’t change the fact that one side is extending its dominance over the other.