>>9970198Short answer: No.
Long answer: Not exactly the same, but close enough. "Hebrew" and "Arab" come from the same Old Semitic term "Bharaba", meaning something like "nomads" or "wanderers". This is analogous to the description in the OT with Isaac and Ishamel as tribal patriarchs of each. The Hebrews started as Semitic nomads that went northwest, and later formed the 12 tribes.
Fast forward a few centuries, the 10 lost tribes of Israel went into Assyrian captivity, where they mixed with gentiles and became the Samaritans, while the Judeans went into Babylonian captivity and later turned into multiple religious sects who defined their identity with the halakha, which would later form what we call "Jews", "Juif" or "Juden", derrived from the Hebrew word "Yehudim". Chief among them were the authors of the talmud and the mishnah and those who would found the basis of post-second-temple Rabbinic Judaism, the Pharisees (who were actually assimilated Edomites).
The Romans sacked Jerusalem and in turn raped lots of Jewish women, while killing loads of Jewish men. After the Jewish-Roman wars, the Romans sent them into their second diaspora, across the Imperium and forced them to live among gentiles. Later they subordinated Palestine to the governor of Syria, introducing Roman law.
This "goyim melting pot" led the Jews to revise halakhic marital laws where Jewishness was now derrived from the mother, as opposed to the original patrilineal descent that, for example, the priests still had to maintain. This is actually a Roman law ("Mater semper certus est"/"Pater semper incertus est") and not biblical.
The intermarriage and conversion became so threatening that the Jewish priestly caste decided to self-isolate Jews from gentiles in ghettos, at least to milden the effects.
In reality, Jews only managed to preserve their paternal lines, and their maternal lines are now completely filled with convert women.This post summarizes it well:
>>9970250 
