No, 2000 BC is way too early.
What I think confuses many authors and scholars is that there were LOTS of different Hebrews roaming around that part of the world at that time. Abraham was just one, but his huge line of descendents gets virtually all the attention. Then, when some other group appears of historic interest authors try to relate those people to Abraham and his offspring. Makes for lots of misteaks IMHO.
For Example, many/most of the books on the CELTS are full of nice pictures of what is identified as Celtic art, but much of the narrative content is way off base. Fortunately, as result of good archeology in very recent years the Celts are being re-examined and re-defined quite differently. It is literally changing history.