There are various problems with the series, the most obvious being that it compares apples with oranges and also with screwdrivers, meaning that the different maps present different data-sets. Some of the data-sets themselves are inaccurate.
Judging by the picture above, your version of the maps is even more problematic than some of the other versions which are out there. I'll relate to your version as presented on Mondoweiss.
First, the map from 1946. Even standing alone without the series, it's misleading in that it contains two distinct types of information. The outline is of the territory controlled by the British, commonly known as Palestine. Being a map of a political entity, however, the whole thing should be the same color, green in this case, since the entire territory was ruled by the British, the white parts and the green. If one wished to show privately owned land under the sovereignty of the British according to ethnic identity, the green would have been replaced by a hodgepodge of colors. Some of the land was owned by Jews, some by Arabs (today we would call them Palestinians), some by Arab absentee landlords of other nationalities (Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians and so on), some by European churches – Catholic Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and others, and finally, the largest section by far would have been land registered by no-one and thus belonging to the government, i.e the British.
As far as I can see, your version has omitted the Jewish ownership of property in Jerusalem (where there was a majority of Jews), and in various pockets such as the Etzion Block, Neve Yaacov, settlements on the Dead Sea, Hebron, Safed, Naharia and its hinterland, Kfar Darom in Gaza, and so on. But the main problem with this map isn't its omissions of Jewish property, but rather the implication that any land not owned by Jews was "Palestine". Not true. If it's land ownership you're trying to depict then most of the territory was owned by the British government; if it's political sovereignty then the entire area was British.
The second map drops the issue of land ownership, and the series never returns to it. This map is a reasonably accurate depiction of the partition plan adopted by the United Nations on November 29th 1947, with one glaring omission: the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area, which was very clearly not allocated to either side, but designated as a Corpus Separandum. I emphasize: Jerusalem and Bethlehem. So the cartographer has allocated to a notional Palestine a very important piece of territory which it never had.
Of course, this map never depicted a reality. At the time it was rejected by all the Arab states which had a vote, and also by the local Arabs themselves who did not generally call themselves Palestinians at the time, but we can agree to call them that now. I'm not going to get into the question of who foiled the UN partition plan, but I think we can agree that all sides played their roles; the Jewish Yishuv, Husseini's Palestinian forces, Kaukji's forces, and the Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese forces which participated in fighting in territory which had previously been under British rule.
The third map (1949-1967) is misleading in its own way. It depicts Israel in white, and two other un-named territories in uniform green, the same green the first two maps implied had been Palestinian territory. Of course, this does not conform to the historical reality. The Gaza section was controlled by Egypt, not the Palestinians, and rightfully should be defined as Egyptian-occupied Gaza. The larger green section was controlled by Jordan. Jordan annexed it and gave its population Jordanian citizenship, so I don't know if it was legally occupied or not: if so, it's status was probably similar to its status under Israeli rule after 1967: occupied, with settlers from the occupying country. If it wasn't occupied, then it was part of Jordan. (That's the source of the name "West Bank: the western half of Jordan). Either way, it can't be depicted as Palestine.
You'll also note that this map shies away from dealing with private ownership, which was the theme of the first map. Had it shown private ownership it would have had to note that some of the territory inside Israel was owned by Palestinians, of course, but that no land inside Jordan was accepted as being owned by Jews, even though in some places their ownership had never been rescinded in anything that might resemble due process.
Finally, the fourth map. For the first time in the series, there is now a type of Palestinian rule – in all of Gaza, and on the West Bank. Let's set aside the distinction between Hamas rule in Gaza and PA rule on the West Bank. Less explicable is the cartographer's decision to pretend that the Palestinian writ runs only in Area A, with nary any mention of the larger Area B sections. As far as I understand the history, this map doesn't show a rump area of Palestinian rule, but on the contrary, it shows the emergence, for the first time ever, of a new entity, of and for Palestinians. Not a disappearing Palestine, but an emerging one!
I suppose you may say I'm quibbling, and that in a territory which had a minority of Jews 150 years ago, there has emerged a state of foreigners which has thwarted the emergence of a state of the original population. This, of course, is true. The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that both sides are right, and both have legitimate claims on the same tiny piece of land. Most of us think that the only way to resolve the conflict is for each side to reconcile itself to the loss of important parts of the territory so that the other side will have room for their national state. As to why this hasn't yet happened, you and I probably disagree. We may also not agree on the details of how the partition ought to be done. Yet those are legitimate issues which need to be resolved in negotiations.
The maps you've published, on the other hand, tell a different story: that Israel is purposefully pushing out the Palestinians so as to have the entire land for itself. This is not true, which explains why in order to make the claim the maps need to be so sloppy with the facts.
Finally, a note on projection. I never cease to be surprised by Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders who feel they have a moral right to condemn the Jews for migrating to another land and pushing aside the natives. Surely the Jewish case for moving to the land of their history is vastly better than the case of Europeans moving to continents they had no history in. Over time, however, I've begun to notice that such critics of the Jews assume, perhaps subconsciously, that the behavior of the Jews must by necessity follow the pattern of their own forebears: total dismissal of their common humanity with the natives they're pushing aside, followed by near-total dispossession. This, however, is a complex of the critics, and has very little to do with the Jews.

And in 1946, Syria was French lands. Not really, but the same foreign inter loapers who gave Britts their blessings to rule Palestinian lands ALSO gave French people their blessing to occupy Syria and Lebanon. And seventy years earlier gave Belgian's King Leapold the 2nd their blessing to rule the Congo in Africa, in which the Belgians murdered and mutilated millions of Africans in the Congo.

Yes, western interloapers really do have NO business giving the little people's lands to their friends.


Yes, Palestinians DID reject appeasing the Zionist's chosen murderous theft of Palestinian lands, as Zionists included the murderous part of their chosen theft of Palestinian lands into their chosen war of conquest, and then tried, and failed to blame their chosen victims for the hostilities that the Zionist's chosen war of conquest created, as can be witnessed in Yaacov's own post, right above, take a look, it is right there, for ALL to see, even YOU, YES you, take a look, be real and see for yourselves,...

WOW, a bit of truth. YES, the green areas were occupied by Egypt and the Heshemite occupies of Eastern Palestine ( AKA Jordan, which is a made up stat,e made up by the same Brittish occupiers of Palestinian lands who helped Zionist invaders invade Palestine.

And your point would be what??? That Egyptians and Heshemites being murderous thirves of SOME Palestinian lands makes Zionists somewhat less of a bunch of murderous thieves of ALL the white parts of Palestine shown in that map???

Seriously? Is that the best (the very BEST ) that the Zionist propagandists can come up with??? Damn, that shit is in the Bible. The Enemies of God, the chief prince (aka, the largest minority of Meshec and Tobal, would invade from Moscow and Toblinsk while the King of the south and king of the East would ALSO invade Gods people. And that is the BETS you could come up with??? The Egyptians and heshmites ALSO were murderous thieves of Palestinian lands...???

That is the BEST you can come up with???

Well than, By YOUR reasoning, NAZIs didn't really invade Poland because the Soviets ALSO invaded Poland. NOW, can you see what a total load of dung you are shoveling at us???

I got my right nut that says you can't.

Oh, and The NAZIs also crate Vichy France. But unlike the Zionist enablers, no NAZIs ever claimed to create a French country.

Shows you something right there doesn't it? Zionist enablers will say or do anything to rationalize the Zionist's chosen murderous theft of Palestinian lands.

It is like these Zionist enablers have never stepped out of their own brainwashing, But when they do, they are exposed as being so full of dung that they have not a nut left or right among them that they would wager.

Good summary of Information on why this set of maps is a hoax

Ooops. I left something out.

That first map of 1946 shows much more Palestinian lands as being Jewish owned. Zionists had their Kibbutzes in which they would buy a few acres of land, pack it with a few dozen Zionist families, and then work hundreds of acres of Palestinian public lands (called Crown lands by the British occupiers). And Zionists just stole the Palestinian public lands and claimed it as their property. They called the theft "sweat equity" as if working Palestinian public lands made the Palestinian public lands the property of the Zionist invaders.

So, for that first map of 1946 to be accurate, there would not be nearly as much white. Instead, you would have to show tiny little dots, spread out in a much greener field. The tiny little dots would be so small that the map would have to be the size of a billboard for people to even be able to see the tiny little dots.

You are confusing residency, sovereignty and ownership. Britain was sovereign at this time. The land that was privately held was held by residents of dozens of different countries- the northern quarter of the land was owned by 3 Syrian families. Does that make it Syrian? Huge chunks of Jerusalem was owned by the Armenian church, the Russian Orthodox church and the Greek Orthodox church. Does that make it Greek, Armenian or Russian?

The lying maps of Disappearing Palestine just decided that anything not owned by a jew was owned by a Palestinian, but thats simply not true.

re: map of Disappearing Palestine: This should clarify it for you

The important thing to keep in mind is that there was never an independent state of Palestine on this land.

Uhh, whats funny is that you try so hard to prove that those areas aren't of Palestine... but in no way did you prove why Israel should be included in those parts lol. This is easy bias.

BULLLSHIT this website it full of lies

Nearly a quarter of a million people marched in Cape Town, South Africa in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

In an open letter announcing the demonstration, a coalition of Palestinian groups organized by the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, write: "As we face the full might of Israel’s military arsenal, funded and supplied by the United States and European Union, we call on civil society and people of conscience throughout the world to pressure governments to sanction Israel and implement a comprehensive arms embargo immediately."

Taking up their call, an estimated 170,000 people took to the streets of Cape Town, South Africa in one of the biggest demonstrations the city has seen in 20 years. According to reports, Archbishop Desmond Tutu joined the marchers who carried signs that read: "Africans understand colonialism," and “Zuma suffer of (sic) historical amnesia."

In London, over 100,000 people rallied in Hyde Park in a massive outpouring of solidarity and in Paris activists marched through the city carrying a large banner which read: "Boycott Israel Apartheid."

You should learn a little more about the facts and stop trying to nitpick so much. Any way you try to paint this horse, it's still going to look the same. The Britts handed governmental power of "not their land originally/palestine/biblical palestine/the ottoman empire/call it whatever you want, but it wasn't israel" to the jews. How else do you think that a group of immigrants can set up camp and not be slaughtered by the people that already live there ,who by the way, perceve these immigrant's presence as an invasion? Read on...

From Wikipedia: History of Palestine

In World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany. As a result, it was embroiled in a conflict with Great Britain. Under the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine[211] but appeared to contradict the 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which contained an undertaking to form an Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt. McMahon's promises could have been seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, which became the real cornerstone of the geopolitics structuring the entire region. The Balfour Declaration, likewise, was seen by Jewish nationalists as the cornerstone of a future Jewish homeland.

The British-led Egyptian Expeditionary Force, commanded by Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem on 9 December 1917 and occupied the whole of the Levant following the defeat of Turkish forces in Palestine at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918 and the capitulation of Turkey on 31 October.[212][213] Allenby famously dismounted from his horse when he entered Jerusalem as a mark of respect for the Holy City and was greeted by the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic leaders of the city.

Following the First World War and the occupation of the region by the British, the principal Allied and associated powers drafted the mandate, which was formally approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Great Britain administered Palestine on behalf of the League of Nations between 1920 and 1948, a period referred to as the "British Mandate"...

The mandate British were pro-Arab. They knew where the oil was coming from, after all. That is why they restricted Jewish immigration to the Holy Land, and why they are complicit in the deaths of over 6 million innocents.

Read
Uncovered: U.K. intel encouraged Arab armies to invade Israel in 1948

Intelligence obtained by the French secret services in the Middle East sheds new light on Britain’s role in the Arab-Israeli War of Independence.

the correct term according to international law is illegally occupied Palestine

"complicit in the deaths of over 6 million innocents."
you mean the Warbergs who had Auschwitz built to service the I.G. Farben facilities?
who are we talking about here?

One of the most pernicious and common scams propagated by anti-Israeli activists is the so-called 'shrinking maps' of Palestine (see bottom of this article). As with most anti-Israel propaganda (like "Israelis are baby-killers" whereas in fact Israel does everything to avoid any civilian casualties while Palestinians specifically target young children; and "Israel is an apartheid state" whereas Israel is the only country in the Middle East to provide full rights for all religious groups while the Palestinian Authority allows no Jews at all) the claims are a perfect inversion of reality.

In 2010 I decided that the best way to counter these maps was to show the following alternative (I could not find anything like this on the web so I developed it myself - there have been copies since). The map demonstrates the extent to which it is Israel that has been shrinking since 1973, in its desperate but increasingly futile hope to trade 'land for peace':