Lets start with a couple of points that probably need to be considered.
Even back near the end of the 19th Century it was realised that the numbers of people in the Exodus were somewhat implausible. Apparently the word translated as "thousand" can also be used to mean "tent" and is used in this form as a count for numbers of people. The numbers, I think are still uncomfortably high but obviously it is far less of a problem and if the conquest account in Joshua was not thoroughly dead already it could possibly be saved by assuming that the Canaanites were weaker than Joshua suggests (which is more in accord with the archaeology anyway)
Secondly, the highland settlements. There is one feature that links the third wave of highand settlement discussed in _The Bible Unearthed_ with Israel. In the third wave - unlike the previous waves or neighbouring cultures - there is no sign of pigs.
On to my view of Exodus.
The current account seems to be based on legends old at the time of writing - I would say redaction, but I beleive that there was considerable editing and that the version we have is in may ways a work of religious and nationalistic (or even racist) propaganda.
One of the more puzzling parts of Exodus is 4:24-6 for which the only plausible explanation I can imagine is that it is an old legend so well known that the writiers could not leave it out. I can see no other reason for including it at all - especially as it makes little sense where it is (why not put it earlier - say around the end of Exodus 2 ?)
We know from the archaeological evidence that there is no sign of an external force invading Canaan at the time which best fits the Exodus. On the other hand the Moses story probably has some basis in historical fact (even if it is obscured by the development of the legend and the purposeful reworking that produced the text that we have). We also know that the Amarna letters show Canaan as a land of petty kings, squabbling among themselves while protesting their loyalty to Egypt and blaming the others. Perhaps the original version referred not to a bondage In Egypt but Egyptian dominance over the region - speculative, to be sure but in accord with the evidence. Perhaps the curent version was reworked during the Babylonian captivity, and reflects that situation or perhaps the fate of Israel inspired it - because I find the evidence of seventh century authorship persuasive, and that demands that the original text preceded the captivity.
And who was the original "Moses" ? It is hard to say, of course, but the story (and name) suggests an Egyptian renegade - perhaps one who joined the Apiru and claimed credit for all the troubles Egypt had in the area. Perhaps - and I speculate again - the stories in Numbers of God killing Israelites who did not recognise Moses' authority reflect the actions of the ruthless original. But then there is no solid bsis for anything more than speculation. Whatever Moses did he became a hero of some sort, then a legend, and lastly the Yahweh cult claimed the legend as their own. Whatever lies beneath that it seems, is lost to use, because archaeology offers nothing from that time - whenever it was - that we can link with the story we have now.