Islam is not a religion of peace in at least the sense that there are major voices in the schools of law that say Islam commands aggressive war against the Non-Muslims on a regular basis. Some of the verses you quote are employed in the derivations of these legal opinions.
I will talk about jihad in its martial sense; as with most issues, there is disagreement among the scholars about military jihad. However, saying "all the scholars who give rulings that support violence in any way are wrong" as is sometimes implied in discussions on the issue is not Islamically correct: scholars may disagree with each other, but in as far as they perform ijtihad in a methodologically acceptable way, they all represent valid Islamic positions. There has been a wide spread ranging from "jihad is only allowed when Muslims are being attacked" to "aggressive jihad is fard kifayah (communal obligation) once a year, even if the kuffar show no signs of aggression". I'll be giving evidence for the latter opinion carrying some weight, as that already shows that there are influential, Islamically valid positions that argue in favor of aggressive warfare.
Reliance of the traveler (see the answer here regarding its authority), one of the most influential shafi'i manuals of fiqh, deals with jihad in section o9; section o9.1 outlines that it is a communal obligation in general, and sections o9.2 and o9.3 say it is a personal obligation for everyone present in battle lines or present in defense of territory controlled by Muslims. Explaining what exactly the communal obligation mentioned in o9.1 consists of, sections o9.8 and o9.9 describe the conduct of the caliph with regard to jihad (text in [ ] is mine):
o9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the Non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself - while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslims or else pay the Non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden - who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" [this is 9:29; the rest of the section deals with Isa's return and I omit it here]
and section o9.9:
o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshipers, re permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshipers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi (y21), 6.48-49)).
O and N are commentators, with N being the translator of the work, Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller.
The hanafi manual of fiqh "mukhtasar" of al-Quduri, a widely influential foundational manual for the hanafi school, talks about jihad in chapter 59 - campaigns (siyar). The sections of the book in the linked English translation are not subdivided, and I have the kindle edition so I can't refer to page numbers; the quotes are verbatim though with the caveat that the transliterations of Arabic may not be searchable in kindle, so omit them if you'd like to check the quotes. The translation of the Arabic original in the linked edition already has additions in [ ] in it and I leave them as they are; I did not add anything to the quotes.
Jihād is a collective obligation; when a group of the people establish it, [the obligation] lapses from the rest, but if none of them establish it, [then] all of the people are guilty of wrongdoing by its omission.
Fighting unbelievers is obligatory, even it they do not initiate it against us.
When Muslims enter territory at war [with the Muslims] (dār al-ḥarb) and they lay siege to a city or to a fort, they invite [the inhabitants] to Islam. If [the inhabitants] accept them, [then] [the Muslims] desist from fighting them, but if they decline, [the Muslims] call them to pay jizyah.
The next quote talks about Non-Muslims who refuse both paying jizyah and entering Islam; it contains three footnotes that I give after:
If they refuse, 1371 [the Muslims] should seek the aid of Allah, exalted is He, against them and wage war on them. They should fire catapults 1372 at them and burn [their buildings and strategic positions]. They should unleash water against them 1373 and cut down their trees and destroy their crops.
1371: To accept the invitation of Islam, or to pay jizyah and come to a truce on other terms.
1372: Firing with catapults and shooting arrows at the enemy is today replaced with modern means of onslaught, which includes firing shells, laser-guided missiles, electronic means of attack and even computer hacking – such as computer viruses, worms, trojans, etc., media warfare, and financial un-plugging, etc.
1373: Flood their forts if possible.
There are also rulings that talk about Muslim collateral damage being acceptable:
There is no objection in shooting them [with arrows], even though there may be Muslim prisoners or traders amongst them.
If they shield themselves with children of the Muslims, or with prisoners, [the Muslims] should not cease shooting at them [with arrows]. With the shooting [of arrows, etc.] they target non-Muslims, but not the Muslims.
So in short: there are authoritative positions in hanafi fiqh that consider aggressive jihad obligatory on the ummah, whether the Non-Muslims are aggressive or not.
Finally for something straightforwardly available, islamQA says concerning the purpose of jihad
- The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people.
then after that
- [...] The scholars are unanimously agreed that repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims is fard ‘ayn (an individual obligation) upon those who are able to do that.
Note two points here: first, spreading Islam by jihad is declared as the main purpose of it; second, it is contrasted against defensive jihad, meaning that the first point is not fully covered by the second one, which implies that not all jihad is defensive.
For some historical perspective; Muhammad himself conducted more than 60 military campaigns over the last decade of his life, and by the end of his life ruled most of Arabia. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman each waged wars of conquest and expanded the caliphate to incorporate Egypt and Persia, and while Ali did not conduct any conquest campaigns during his 2 year rule that was marked by internal struggle, he is not recorded as having objected in principle to the conquests of the other three Rashidun caliphs. After the Rashidun, the Umayyads conquered North Africa and territory reaching to the borders of China. An overview can be found on wikipedia. Within 150 years, Muslims conquered territory so vast that by the end of that period the caliphate was one of the largest empires in human history. I haven't seen scholarly opinions that would condemn a significant portion of Islamic expansion as haram; opinions that consider this history of warfare to be mostly a welcome implementation of jihad on the other hand are easy to find.