I read a lot about the Oslo Accords and both sides have their take on it. Especially as to why it has not succeeded. The questions are: What was the Oslo Accords supposed to achieve? What was each side's role in it? What, if anything has each side achieved since it was signed? What are the advantages of keeping the Accords alive for each side, good or bad? Was it done in good faith by both sides? What was it like before the Accords? What is it like now? Is it best to keep it as is, or put an end to it? What would be the consequences of ending it for each side? Where did it go wrong? etc, etc Many decades later, there are a few articles which possibly point to the reason why the Accords seem to not have succeeded in bringing a Peace Treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, as negotiations did between Israelis, Egyptians and Jordanians before it, or any kind of peace at all. Senior Palestinian Journalist: Arafat Told Me He Went Along With Oslo Accords Because It Would Make 'The Jews... Leave Palestine Like Rats Abandoning A Sinking Ship' The ‘Oslo Diaries’ and Yasser Arafat’s trunk Was Arafat in good faith when he signed it, or was this another Hudna on the Arab side, following on the footsteps of what Mohammad had done with the Jewish Tribe of Khaybar in the 7th Century as the article below suggests? Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance Is there any chance of making both sides return to the ideas of the Accords and eventually follow them to the conclusion they were meant to bring when they were first signed? What do the experts say? What do you say?