from resolution 242 (UNSC):

...the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:      
   
    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force....

This is a demand for all parties involved, in particular part (ii).

CarolC's answer to Sinsull's question only addresses Israel which in my mind is not a way to peace. All parties have to say goodbye to a number of dearly held ideas. Israel has to say goodbye to the idea of a greater Israel (minor exchanges of land should not play a big role) and will have to withdraw from Golan and (nearly) all of the Westbank.
The surrounding Arab states (of the whole region) will have to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. The Palestinians will have to do the same (acknowledge the existence of Israel at that place and in addition will have to say goodbye to the idea of a right to return (in exchange for monetary compensation).

Israel will have no right to interfere in any way with the new Palestinian state and that state will have to do all it can to make it impossible (as far as that goes) for its citizens to attack Israel in any way.

The last paragraph will take several years to implement after an accord. For these few years the sovereignty of Palestine will be slightly restricted (surveillance not by Israel, but by the UN or, better, neighbours in the name of the UN: Arab and Turkey in which both partners have trust)

One sided demands as are in abundance in this thread will never lead to peace.

Israel then (1967) accepted the resolution, most Arab states and the Palestinians rejected it. As long as both sides insist that the other side first implements what is most difficult for them and then perhaps the other part of the agreement may follow (or not) there will be no solution. If I was the Israeli prime minister, I would not give up the control of the Westbank or most of the settlements there without being sure (as sure as one can be; pacts always may be broken) that (ii) will be acknowledged at the same time. If I was a leader of the Palestinians I would not give Israel the feeling they can be safe from attacks without being given a trustworthy assurance of an interference free Palestinian state.

Until the time of an agreement settling all of the open questions or at least most of them one-sided demands are just propaganda and nothing else. Some people may swallow it.

"You first give me what I want/need most and then we'll see" is doomed to fail.

Wolfgang