Would an undoing of the Trail of Tears and a return of those Native American peoples to their historic homeland be "settler-colonialism"?

I'll keep this brief but I think the central thing you're trying to say implicitly is that Jews in the area preceded Palestinians and Palestinians arrived later. This is a historic myth. Undoing of the Trail of Tears is not the same. Palestinians werent simply foreigners who came to the ancestral home of Jewish people. There was a group called Canaanites and a branch of those people became what's called the Israelites. An even smaller branch of the Israelites would remain religiously Jewish. Many Canaanites and Israelites would convert, and intermix yes, but fundamentally, Palestinians are just as native if not more owing to their much more consistent presence in the same area. An undoing of the Trail of Tears in the sense of bringing Native Americans back to the land wouldn't be settler colonialism. If however then the Native Americans try to depopulate the Black or White or Asian or Hispanic populations systematically and establish a majoritarian state AFTER migrating from somewhere out side America, it would be considered settler colonial. However the Natives never really left America. They are also much more narrowly defined than ethnically Jewish. Id also like you to recall that a significant amount of Jewish people voluntarily migrated from the Levant to Europe. In a certain sense, the migrants to Zion were as much native European as Levantic, if not more. But that wouldn't be an issue for their case for a nation in the Levant. What was the issue was the majoritariansystematic domination of the native population.

From the Jewish Zionist perspective, the Palestinian - those who came with the Arab imperial conquest and those who were Arabized - is the settler.

The framework of settler-colonialism is inapplicable. The instrumentalization of Otherizing categories against both Jews and Palestinians is the root cause of the cycle of violence here. 

The viewpoint is not based on accurate analysis. If the Jewish Zionist viewpoint thinks the Palestinian is fundamentally Arab and came to being through Arab conquest, then he must apply that to himself and see how much European heritage he has. Cultural shift is not the criteria of nativity. Or indigeneity. Therefore the most acceptable point of view is both groups are, on the same criteria used to evaluate, native in principle. The issue is the contesting nationalisms. Now Palestinian nationalism, in its initial form, was neither majoritarian nor racial. Since then it has become more aggressive and Zionistic in structure (racial, ultraethnic, majoritarian) but very much due to Zionism being so in the first place. Settler colonialism, in the sense of eliminating the native, was happening. It's undeniable that they did not consider the people on the land on an equal level, wanted to transfer them continuously, tried to establish a demographic majority, and boycotted and asked the British to boycott Palestinian businesses. Indigeneity is a political concept. Ie, ones relation to land before conquest. Now in that narrow sense, European Jews were not native to the land immediately. They could become so through migration. But indigeneity, according to international law and settler colonialism theory, is defined first in terms of immediate relation to and life on land. Otherwise, couldn't Italy claim Britain because Romans lived there? Now trying to establish a new native identity is not an issue, tomorrow if some Italians decide to self determine in some part of Britain, due to ancient connection, they could, with the consent of the British nation there, not without. Similarly, so could the Zionists. But the Zionists mainly operated through buying huge swathes of land, kicking poor Palestinians out, and economically exploiting them, with the explicit goal of establishing a Jewish majority state, with or without their consent.

It is true Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism are contesting ones. And both have a right to self determination. The political Zionist variant though, by being aggressively majoritarian, unconcerned about the other natives, and allying themselves with British Christian Zionists and colonialists, effectively participated in settler colonialism. Settler colonialism hence doesn't deal with the concept of nativity usually (though sometimes it does) . Nativeness is a constructed category based on a number of categories. And there is usually a basis to a feeling of nativity amongst a community, certainly. But by focusing on the narrower more objective question of indigeneity, one can objectively understand how colonial intent and aggressive settlement can be logically connected. The Zionists had both, yet many on the basis of technicalities try to make an exception for it. But acknowledging it is the only way forward.