II) The Assembly then adopted by a vote of 167 in favour, 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) and 2 abstentions (Cameroon, Tonga), the resolution entitled Special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (document A/65/L.16).  (See Annex III) The Assembly, by a vote of 165 in favour to 7 against ( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States) and 4 abstentions, adopted the resolution on peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/65/L.17).  (See Annex IV) Following that action, Japan 's representative said that his delegation's vote should have been recorded as an abstention. Also speaking after action, the representative of Israel said his delegation had voted against the resolution on the question of Palestine -- its position had not changed because the one-sided narrative had remained the same.  The resolution was completely divorced from reality.  For example, he said the text only called on one side to make compromises, neglecting to mention security threats like the fact that 1 million Israelis lived in daily fear of rocket attacks from the Gaza strip.  Nether did the text mention Hamas' violence.  How could a peaceful settlement be discussed in a resolution that failed to mention Gilad Shalit, who had been denied his rights and whose whereabouts were unknown? The resolution said nothing of positive developments that had occurred over the past year.  Indeed, despite continued threat of terrorism, Israel had lifted