To discuss "The Palestinians" in the context of the ancient history is rather farfetched - under the Ottoman empire it is difficult to say whether the Palestinians identified themselves as Palestinians . Going into detail on your examples, Safed 1517 seems to be a case of anti-semitism during wartime, in the case of 1660 Tiberias/Safed it was the Druze who attacked, for reasons not immediately apparent. In modern times, Druze do not identify as Palestinians. Hebron 1834... was a case of a day of rape and pillage by an army after a 5 months siege, in which there were a grand total of 12 casualties. Calling that a massacre seems more a propaganda piece than a massacre. especially as the Arab population suffered over 500 casualties during that same day. But they don't really count in your examples, do they?
The 1929 riots are more interesting. To quote wikipedia: "The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence "without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."[ It also attributed the cause as being Arab fears of Jewish immigrants "not only as a menace to their livelihood but as a possible overlord of the future."
With the benefit of hindsight we might say they had a point.
When Israel entirely withdrew from all Gaza settlements in 2005, they were immediately met with an increase of violence, not less.
Is that so strange? It is quite obvious to all involved why Israel withdrew: it would make it possible to stall peace negotiations for much longer, it would bottle the Palestines up in West Gaza, a much smaller area than the original plans show, and holding the settlements was politically impossible if Israel wanted to keep up relations with the rest of the world. This was realized by the Palestines as well.
So is there *any* reason to believe the Palestinians -- the same people who overwhelmingly support the government that holds this kind of shit [youtube.com] at their schools -- would stop attacking civilians if the settlements are disbanded?
There are loads of reasons to think that the attacks will *never* stop until the settlements are disbanded, for several reasons.
1) the settlers are responsible for a lot of violence themselves. They are a huge part of the problem as they depend economically on the conflict. They do not want peace and do everything possible to stir up trouble. Shutting down the settlements would be a very small first step in normalizing the situation.
2) the settlements use up a lot of water which is scarce in the area. They are connected by roads that the rest of the inhabitants are barred from even crossing, and occupy strategic areas with fertile lands.
3) It is a visible reminder of the fact the population is controlled by outside soldiers.
Removing the settlements won't stop the attacks on civilians (although it will stop attacks on settlements), but it is at least a start towards a solution.
As for Hamas, yeah, they're wankers. It's not as if Israeli politicians are immune to the hatred though: rabbi Dov Lior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Lior) is at least as big a wanker as any member of Hamas.