Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Abbas signs international conventions; Kerry cancels visit [View all]shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)although I do not consider that to be ethnic cleansing, for the same reason that it was not ethnic cleansing when the Russians kicked the Germans out of Stalingrad, nor was it ethnic cleansing when the Chinese kicked the Japanese out of Manchuria.
Clearly it would be ridiculous if it were otherwise. An invading power should hardly have the right to object to being expelled from someone else's territory on the grounds that it would be racially discriminatory when they never had a legitimate entitlement to reside there in the first place. This remains the case even if the natural consequence of such an action would be to create a China that is "Japanesefrei" or a Russia that is "Germanfrei".
Certainly, if amongst the Jewish settlements there were longstanding Jewish populations then I would support them remaining in the West Bank. This would be the case for the Samaritans at Nablus. It would also be the case for the Jewish quarter and other historically Jewish areas of East Jerusalem, although of course it is almost certain that those areas will remain part of Israel anyway. There was also a longstanding Jewish population in Hebron until 1929 but I do not think that there is any connection between them and the current crop of settlers.
In the same way, I would support any solution of the Cyprus problem that involved the expulsion of recent Turkish settlers, but I would oppose any attempt to remove Turkish Cypriots that were resident there before the annexation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey. Again, I would not characterise that as ethnic cleansing. It surely must have been evident to those Turkish settlers that one day they would probably have to leave, just as it must be equally evident to the Jewish settlers that take up residency in the West Bank.