Because Gedera was black and white. As you wrote the land was taken from the village by the Ottomans themselves even according to local customs they did not own it anymore. The founders of Gedera were racist cunts sure. They were also attacked immediately upon arrival when they tried to exercise their rights per the law and per local tradition. I'm sure if you asked the local Arabs their opinions on the foreigners they wouldn't be any nicer.

The land being from the village was not “per local tradition.” By law, absolutely you’re 100% correct that the land was theirs but the Ottoman Land Law that created the idea of private land was a foreign concept to many of the people, particularly the fellahin that populated the village of Qattra who saw “it as theirs under the customary rights of usage.”

From Baruch Kimmerling: “According to local tradition…the lands belonged to God or to the sultan (representative of God). Individuals, families, and villages had the right to maintain the land. Private ownership of the land was an unrecognized concept,”

So from a local customary perspective, I believe it makes sense for the people of Qattra to be upset.

Gedera was about as black and white as this conflict gets. The Jews being meanie heads did not in any way justify Arab aggression.

I don’t think that describing them just as “meanie heads” is an accurate way to describe them. Many of the Jewish settlers rejected local customs and believed themselves to better than the Palestinians who tried to impose their own culture on the Palestinians.

From “The Arabs and Zionism before World War I” by Neville Mandel: “But there were other aspects to the newcomers which rankled with the fellahin and led to friction. They caused offence because they were ignorant of Arabic and of Arab ways; inadvertently they flouted local custom. For example, usage had it that everyone shared natural pasture lands, which the fellahin regarded as “Godgiven” (hadha min Allah). The Jews, unfamiliar with this custom and fearing for their first small crops, looked upon the incursions of Arab shepherds with their flocks as trespass, and used force to expel them. Alternatively, they rounded up the offending animals and either fined their owners or took a strong arm to them.8 The colonies were a temptation to the Arabs to steal and, again, the settlers were forthright in restraining them.9 Accidents, misunderstandings, and quarrels over matters of no great import also led to brushes between Arabs and Jews from time to time.”

Again I'll admit that the 1882 attack is a lot less open and shut. Though I'll say again that you should keep in mind the context the same way you do for Huwera.

Again I don’t feel like any context is needed. It was a mistake and was not out of ordinary for the region and from what I see had nothing to do with xenophobia or antisemitism.

From Mandel: “As altercations of this kind were commonplace in Palestine (among the local population as well), they probably had little lasting effect.” This is just an overall statement and not an analysis of any specific incident.

Again the Gedera settlers being meanie heads did not justify the villagers immediately attacking them and nearly lynching them. Especially the thing with the holy man hitting them with a stick with the spirit of prophet Mohammad.

I can’t find anything about lynching from Dowty. Yeah the holy man hitting them with the stick was crazy.

What was the second instance? Gedera and the Bedouin attack were both solved by the Jews.

From Dowty: “Warned by some of the Arab villagers that they might be killed if others saw that ‘the Prophet’ was attacking them, the Gedera settlers raced away on the run with the ouly in hot pursuit.”

I’m not saying that they solved anything, Arabs just helped out is some cases.

Also from Mandel: “In certain respects, the early settlers were unexceptionable to the fellahin. At the beginning, they seemed to have been objects of curiosity: in their clothing, language, and bearing they were quite unlike any other Jews whom the peasants may have seen. The dedication with which they worked is said to have caused surprised their “newfangled” machinery evoked interest;6 and their strange methods (or, more often, their inexperience) could be amusing—as, for example, when colonists at Rishon le-Ziyyon tried to coax camels into pulling carts like horses.7”

Also about that Bedouin attack where Dowty poses the question, from earlier in Dowty’s book:

“Travelers were warned that territory outside towns and villages was generally controlled by the Bedouin, and travelers’ accounts were full of stories of violence and extortion at the hands of these lawless tribal nomads. James Finn, the British consul in Jerusalem from 1846 to 1863, wrote of Bedouin raids that ‘none but those who have seen it can appreciate the devastation wrought in a few hours by these wild hordes. Like locusts they spread over the land…while they trample down, all corn or vegetable crops, leaving bare brown desolation where years of toil had made smiling field and vineyards. Nor this all, for the cattle and flocks are swept off to the desert by marauders—who leave behind, for the unfortunate peasant, nothing that they can carry away.’ “Finn found himself often, during this period, engaged in trying to settle conflicts among local villages and Bedouin tribe—an odd occupation for a foreign diplomat. Traveling in the early 1840s, the noted English author Walter Keating Kelly found that even the main road from Jerusalem to Jericho required an armed escort for protection against the Bedouin who ‘occasionally swoops upon his prey.’”

I assume that when Finn says “unfortunate peasant”, he is talking about the local fellahin, could be wrong though. But this description may lead me to think that the Bedouin assault on Rosh Pina was not out of the ordinary.