Kind of. "Phoenician" is not a very good label, because it is an outsiders perspective of a confederation, including vassals. It would have been better to draw a distinction between the two different ethnic populaces, but I suppose they had individual tribes so it was too convoluted. If colonisers came in and took vassals, like Tyre or something like that, the Tyrians would still be considered apart of their domain, despite being ethnically/ culturally different. The mainstream conception of history when it comes to that area is largely based on what the Jews say. The Jews will say "Phoenicians" were the Canaanites, that they- the Jews, colonised & dominated, but they are known liars, and they, mostly, do not even believe there is any truth to the Old Testament record. To them, it's just fables to draw morals or esoteric knowledge from. There are also British archaeologists who made that assumption too, likely due to Jewish/ Freemasonic influence, that the European remains were the "Canaanites" of the Bible. Either way Jews slice the cake, they are still a mixed multitude that are part Canaanite. If Canaan was still occupied by the same ethnic population throughout, and it was just a cultural development, Western Europeans would have far more admixture from MENA populations since the Phoenicians had trade routes and colonies going all the way up into Europe. This is indisputable fact. The Hyksos spent a lot of time in Egypt, so it makes sense that they are the starting point for Egyptian influence in Canaan, specifically the development of the alphabet. I am sure that the Pre-Hyksos Egyptians were more closely related to the native Canaanites, but this is way before Ramses or Tutankhamun. The label "Europe" is based on "Europa" who is a Phoenician princess according to Greek legend. And we can see a detailed Greek depiction of the appearance of a "Phoenician" with the bust of Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoicism.