I really don't understand your line of reasoning at all. No one said the genocide in Palestine is unique because of the settler aspect. Genocides have already been performed in the name of that cause in the Americas by European settlers. It is still qualitatively different from the genocides in Darfur and Armenia (which you brought up) but that does not make it unique.

Moreover, even if it is not unique, it does not mean genocides are ubiquitous. That is what it seems to me you are trying to say but it's hard to tell because I can't follow your logic at all. Claiming that tensions between neighbouring states are common is something that should require proof. And then claiming that it often escalated to genocides should require even more proof. Colonialists and settlers trivialise their atrocities by blaming it on human nature and stuff like that. But that's just a cheap move to universalise the capitalist and imperialist logical of accumulation. It is perfectly possible for neighbours to live in peace. You probably have a neighbour. Why haven't they driven you out of your home and laid a claim to it? Or you them? Almost all countries are not genociding their neighbours? Why is that?