I disagree about Insurrection. I see that as a matter of individual freedoms, and Star Trek is all about defending people's rights (Unless you're genetically enhanced). Insurrection is basically Avatar but less competently preachy.
The difference between Avatar and Insurrection was that there was really nothing at stake for humanity by not having unobtainium.
We don't know that. The corporate execs talk about share price—that is their function, after all—but the movie never tells us why
someone is willing to pay so much for it. For all we know it's the only way to stave off a catastrophe that will end the human race, and the survival of humanity is traded in the end for a tree.
What Avatar and Insurrection have in common is that they look only at one side of the dispute. Avatar doesn't show us why the unobtanium is important just like Insurrection doesn't show us the millions of sick and dying people desperately awaiting the medical treatment only these particles can provide.
As Picard says in Insurrection, "It's too easy to turn a blind eye to the suffering of a people you don't know." Both films exploit that by not letting us know the people whose suffering the heroes so gleefully cause.