Palestinians lived in the same lands they had for generations under the British Mandate, aside from where the Zionist colonizers who displaced them (white patches). Whether the land was subject to British vs. Ottoman doesn't change where people lived and developed ethnic identity, economy, communities.

The original partition plan gave Zionist colonizers everything they wanted (literally a European Jewish ethnostate), which is exactly what the Palestinians, the actual people of the area, did not want. A few years prior, Palestinians had been promised a form of sovereignty over the area. The British also fucked around leveraging Transjordan to decrease the lands available. "You should have accepted the deal because the ethnonationalists and their settler-colonial backers ended up doing a genocide" is not an argument in favor of Israel or against freeing Palestine.

Same as the first panel. None of this justifies settler-colonialism or invalidates ethnic identity or working their lands or living in their homes, which is what the Zionists attempted to strip, often successfully. All I really does is highlight why Palestinians need sovereignty and power.

None of those areas have sovereignty. Israel mostly dictates what goes in and out, prevents international recognition of Palestine (with the US - Israel acts as a proxy), prevents them from actually doing normal government things like procuring resources. Gaza is a ghetto with extreme controls on transportation in/out and regular Israeli violence. The West Bank is an apartheid situation undergoing very active settler-colonialism. And it, of course, is also constantly on the receiving end of Israeli violence. Israel destroys Palestine infrastructure, effectively creating pre-industrial living conditions on s regular basis. This relationship is extremely lopsided, with an incredibly well-funded nuclear power controlling all the most valuable land vs. a dispossessed refugee population.