That's a fair point; pre-defining the area as "Gaza" is probably a mistake on my part.
The maps generalize which areas were settled by indigenous Arabs and which were settled by Jewish people. It's a demographic history. You want to point out that, historically, these territories have passed hands between Egypt and Israel before becoming self-governing Palestinian territories. That's very much missing the point of the map, which show the demographic shifts inherent when Israel swooped in and expelled indigenous people from their own land, re-entry being the point of the "right of return" you hate so much.
Personally I think it's a pathetic attempt to dismiss the humanitarian abuses of Israel and the plight of indigenous Arabs by getting pedantic about the fact that so and so block of land was briefly called Sinai during the gap between such and such war and such and such accord/treaty. Your language about "right of return" coupled with your focus on statehood rather than demographics -- the point of the map -- is what I have a problem with.
No, I'm not pro-current situation, because you're jumping twenty steps ahead with no basis or even an actual argument beyond your bare-assed proclamation. Integration of Arabs as Israeli citizens, tearing down the West Bank Barrier, and letting people live where they want to live is a valid alternative to the heartbreak and inhumanity inherent in Israel enforcing separation of ethnicities and religions using the power of their military. Period. I know that 76% percent of Israelis want there to be two states so the nasty indigenous Arabs will stay "over there" but that isn't fucking working so great, is it?
Israel reclaimed Gaza in 1967 during the Six Days War. I'm sorry you missed it.
Okay - you have now managed to illustrate exactly how unsuited you are for debating this topic.
I have NOT said anything about the right of return in this thread. On top of this your posts have had issues with accuracy just as they ascribe motivations and thought patterns to other people's posts. All of this demonstrates that you should not debate the topic until you can at least manage to communicate about it in a reasonable way.
I think you have managed to misunderstand just about everything I have written. Your standpoint is that these maps correspond to some demographic timeline, reduced to a binary Palestinian / Jewish people option. My standpoint is that the data underlying those maps mean that they can not be a representation of who settled where. I would also add that the supporting text surrounding the map also doesn't support your claim.
Furthermore, you manage to (again) ascribe motives to me that I do not have about why I want correct data for your claims. I do not appreciate this and I find it obscene that you can argue this way and feel good about yourself.
However, since you are so concerned with my motives and why I want clean, properly contextualized data I will tell you: Personally I think one of the big obstacles for any progress in this conflict is the ridiculous amount of very low-quality data, unsubstantiated claims and poor understanding of the history of the conflict on both sides. It leads to discussions without any base in reality, and thus no actual progress.
If you want to make a point about the change in demographics across the landmass you are much better served with census data and a few charts, that would illustrate the demographic change over time clearly. On the other hand, if you want to illustrate who had control of a given area at a given time maps are the way to go - but then they should at least be accurate. The original picture of the maps mixes and matches between many data types and end up making none of the points very well, interesting and valid as they may be.
