I'm a postdoc so perhaps not senior or wise enough yet to post, but I didn't see answers I liked so much so I'm posting anyway.
Step 0: You pack up your troubles with you. @akhmeteli makes an important point, but perhaps too subtly for my taste. The OP has identified that there are certain unattractive aspects of the peer-review process, and these seem to be more "cultural" (I would say) than "structural" in the sense that if only we had a better batch of people --- I would prefer to say a better culture of research, better norms particularly --- then the peer review process would be more pleasant and less petty. A significant minority of posters have suggested that, well, sounds like OP should go into industry -- I say, not so fast! Industry could be just as bad if not worse. There is a saying: "You pack up your troubles with you." I don't take this to be a question about staying in academia or not.
And then OP actually doesn't mention quitting academia and suggests in the post that they are relatively well-established (i.e., not at a fork in the road where staying in academia is concerned). I do have a friend who quit academia for reasons along these lines (he and I had a cathartic conversation about how the problem was ego, which is very relevant to this question in my estimation, but that's somewhat beside the point).
Key issue: people are only human. It's interesting the OP says "I hate my peers," not "I really dislike/resent the way peer review is conducted" or something along those lines. I am not trained in psychology, but my understanding is the statement "I hate group X" functions to dehumanize -- or, more relevantly, distance oneself --- from that group. Here's my point: nowhere in the post does the OP acknowledge that they, too, engage in some similar behaviors.
Are the OP's hands really completely clean here? Or, better question: does the OP not realize that they probably also do some similar things, if not in research, then in other aspects of their life? Or perhaps it is a matter of degree and not kind...? So I could say "I hate robbers, they're so low," but then I have been known to download pirated media online... which might not be robbery per se, but it is a kind of stealing.
So I would try to reframe this less about "I hate these people" and more about "Sometimes we are responding to incentives or our egos in ugly ways" (keyword: we) or, at a higher level, "I wish we had a culture that was more idealistic/highminded/principled/generous/understanding/fill-in-the-blank..."
Step 1: They are just as human as the OP. We all have egos. I see what the OP is describing and a lot of it is about ego. For instance, the part mentioning "incremental results": only the reviewer's work is interesting, the author's work is merely incremental. That's ego --- it's also an example of cognitive bias: seeing what you want to see.
Everyone suffers from cognitive bias. That's not a problem that's going away. People are doing their best, but they have blind spots. Some may be worse than others. So, yes, they really may be convinced in their own heads that the work they want you to cite is relevant and needs to be cited --- or they justify it because everyone else does it, or they just need to get this promotion to save their marriage and that justifies it --- in my experience of academia, it seems more like (extreme) cognitive bias due to pressure and competitiveness rather than outright corruption. (Though I have to say, I do think corruption is a good one to keep in mind.) For instance, I have seen what I feel is a very weak paper get published in a quite reasonable journal, but I believe it is because the authors were under so much pressure to get something done that they honestly convinced themselves the paper was worth publishing, not because they cynically accepted pulling a fast one. My point: unless given clear counter-evidence, can we accept that these petty issues are matters of legitimate professional disagreement mixed in with personal error? Perhaps someone had a bad day? Can the OP accept that he might be wrong? Maybe the work really is incremental. Unlike CS research problems, these are subjective questions.
Now, it may be that the OP is a particularly less cognitively biased person than others --- or they believe themselves to be --- but what of sympathy? Also, can we really be sure we're less cognitively biased than others? Or, in general, more moral than them? More principled? I certainly do believe myself to be more principled and more self-circumspect than most of my colleagues --- I go to great lengths to try to give the author the benefit of the doubt and explain literally what I am trying to say ---, but I can also admit that I am just as human as everyone else. I have my own blindspots and lapses.
Step 2: The OP is as human as they are So, again, to me "I hate these people" has a bit of a suggestion of "I am better than these people." I mean, why hate otherwise? I don't want to push this too far --- I didn't actually detect that much condescension or superiority in the OP's writing --- but I think there is a point to be made.
Is the OP too good to just hold his nose and go through the peer review process like everyone else? (What would be the downsides?)
Case in point: I recently had a review that really upset me. I could go into the details --- they're potentially scandalous --- but does the OP really care? What's really important here? I want my research to be published, so does OP, and I also want it to be peer reviewed. Unfortunately, there is a level of politics and pettiness that shows its face. Has it prevented OP from having a research career? Is OP putting food on the table? On track to get a permanent position? In my case, my work is still being published so the upsetting review is a matter of cosmetics. "Sticks and stones." (Actually, the lukewarm response to some of my recent work does mean I have still more reason to migrate to a slightly different subfield, but it's not just one review I'm afraid and the writing has been on the wall.)
When I started teaching, I very quickly realized my teaching evaluations had been much too harsh. When I started trying to work with PhD students on research, I realized how hard that was, and how harsh a critic of my own PhD adviser I had been. That's what I mean when I say: we're all human. It's easy to criticize others, just be careful not to go too far. You're about as good as them.
Can the OP really say that he hasn't been petty, egotistical, or unfair in any of his reviews? Perhaps he can. But should he say it? Are you in a better position to deal with this problem believing it is about other people (hence "I hate them") or understanding it is about the community (hence, e.g., "Our community needs stronger norms") and acknowledging you yourself suffer from related pitfalls?
A solution? I think once you reframe the question, it becomes easier to see possible solutions. For me (I am in the same boat as OP, except I'm a postdoc, perhaps not an "established researched"), it comes down to this.
It's not (all) about me. There's room for debate about which work is better than which other work, and, as I learned in the process of getting a PhD, very smart people (with PhDs) can surprise you in terms of things they may simply misunderstand on any given day. So maybe they're just wrong! Or maybe I am! I can still go home and love my wife, enjoy my hobbies, ... and enjoy research?
So there's a question: can you enjoy research even when it's not appreciated as you feel it should be? Can you enjoy it if you're not at the top? Or not a professor "at Harvard"? (Are there other careers --- less competitive perhaps --- you might enjoy just as much?)
Or, more relevant to the OP's specific question, can you hold your nose and deal with reviews (or author's response to reviews you wrote), even when you have your questions about them? Notice I said "have your questions" --- not "the reviewer was way out of bounds," "he said my work was incremental," etc., just "OK, you don't agree with the reviewer, such is life." Can the OP live with that?
Don't ask me for (more) specific strategies, I'm working on those as well. But I do think humility helps, and not looking to point a finger, building a case against the reviewer, etc. helps. If you're at a point where you notice the reviewer used the adjective "incremental" and you're stewing over that, looking for support from people online about how you're in the right, etc., that behavior right there --- that is what I'm actively working on not doing. You have no control over other people, but you do have some over yourself.
Is this stuff really what you want to spend your time thinking about? (If so, how can you transition your career or your free time so you're changing "the system" then? Or maybe, instead of a question-and-answer site discussion, which might not be optimized for this, you want to organize a discussion forum at a conference where academics get together expressly to talk about these kind of "cultural" issues? I don't want to be patronizing, but I don't think Q&A is the best way to go about this.)
You know the worst part of the review I mentioned above? The worst part is knowing the reviewer has a point, even though I mostly feel it was an unfair review! So how much nuance or subtlety is really worthwhile here? (I.e., is the reviewer really completely wrong, or are they just unfair, and does it really matter?) Let's go find other problems to work on and keep improving. So far I said a lot about the review and nothing about the actual research involved. Part of me is determined to prove the reviewer wrong by publishing follow-up papers improving on the first one --- because I do think our work is interesting and I have a hunch there's a lot more to do. The other part? The other part of me thinks it's not worth it and I should just transition to a different set of research problems entirely! Either way, sounds like I have better things to do than stew over the review, no?
Addendum: Case study. OK, so here's an example that I think illustrates what I'm on about. I guess what I'm trying to say after all is: don't take things (so) personally.
I know a bunch of researchers, all in the same field, who will not talk to each other. Mary won't talk anymore to her PhD adviser Frank. Kyle won't talk to me because of a heated argument once between us. Did I mention Frank and his former postdoc Skip don't talk to each other either? And Bob and his former PhD student Claude don't speak anymore either.
Kyle won't talk to me, but, you know what, I'm determined to show no such antipathy towards them. I'm ready to resume communication at any time, and I look forward to the day we're talking again. It's nothing personal to me. I get it, it's not unique to Kyle! Just look at Frank and Bob! Kyle is probably a great person (who, by the way, I don't know well at all), it's just our job is competitive, there's a lot of pressure, people get into arguments.
If I descend into the "I really dislike my colleague Kyle. Help me, Academia Stackexchange," the problem is I indulge my ego (or something like that --- again, not a psychologist here). I indulge the belief that I'm better than Kyle. Anyway, what is there to do? Maybe Kyle just has nothing to say to me. We'll probably meet at a conference and I'll realize it was all in my head. So what is it? I believe he's got lots of potential as a researcher and I want our field to benefit as much as possible from that --- his success is mine as well, I really believe that. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm here to do research, I hope to work with Kyle again some day, but I have other collaborators and so does he so I'm not worried.
And, more generally, I'm determined not to fall into the same trap as the others. I want to do the best work possible. I want to work with other researchers. I'm here, I'm talking. If we have personal disputes, we'll deal with them, try to put them to the side, have heated arguments. But I'm not "ghosting" or going into "not talking to so-and-so" mode. As far as "What can I do about Kyle?," or "What can I do about the reviewers?", not taking things personally is my best answer.