The Oslo Accords (1993) are widely held to have been a failure, and their collapse in 2001 is uncontested by scholars and politicians alike. Many have addressed the unequal playing field on which the negotiations were held. Israel had the clear upper hand, and Palestinians were expected to make equal if not greater concessions from a starting point that was stacked against them. Palestinians refused to concede more of their territory and rights to Israel, and many point to these reasons to explain the failure of the negotiations without seeking to understand the wider circumstances of the process. Alternatively, the deleterious effects of the Good Friday Agreement (1998) are often covered up by its advertised success. Though the agreement was signed by the conflicting parties, it failed to reconcile or reverse over 400 years of British settler colonialism in Ireland, and the agreement not only maintained inequalities but also exacerbated them. The agreement was no decolonization measure; the British occupation of Northern Ireland was fortified, and to this day the civil rights of the native Irish remain under assault. This paper compares the Oslo Accords and the Good Friday Agreement and is based upon an analysis of unequal power relationships during peace processes. It details the impact of such inequalities in negotiations on life after they end. While the Good Friday Agreement is touted as the great success of the peace process era and the Oslo Accords are seen as its worst failure, there are many similarities between Northern Ireland and Palestine/Israel in the realms of settler colonialism, majority/minority power dynamics, and the lived experiences of Palestinians and the Irish. For example, wealth inequality widened in both locations, while the spatial fracturing of the less powerful group heightened in both instances. Despite these similarities, Ireland's peace agreement is seldom used to compare to Palestine's Oslo process. This paper provides a comparative lens through which to view the Oslo process and advances a fresh perspective on the 1990s era of peace processes. In doing so, it emphasizes the similar lived experiences of people who witnessed different formal outcomes. To demonstrate this, the research relies on semi-structured interviews with negotiators and leaders of peace-building NGOs as well as primary documents collected in Palestine, Israel, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. The novel findings of this fieldwork situate it within the literature on settler colonialism and conflict resolution.