Checkpoint Washington reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s nomination today on a voice vote. His confirmation is now awaiting final approval on a full Senate vote. President Obama recess appointed Ford last year after Republicans blocked his nomination, claiming that sending an ambassador to Damascus — a spot that had been vacant since 2005 — would be a reward to Bashar al-Assad’s regime for bad behavior.

Some senators, like Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), originally opposed Ford’s confirmation last year, but many are now in support (Rubio as recently as April called on Obama to recall Ford as a response to Assad’s violent crackdown on the pro-democracy movement there). Indeed, one GOP aide actually admitted that Ford has been doing great work in Syria, but some Republicans will most likely put a hold on his confirmation anyway:

“Most people don’t have a problem with Ford specifically. He actually is pretty good,” said one Republican staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss deliberations among Republicans. “There’s been a deeper question of the administration’s having a clear, consistent, coherent policy on Syria.”

“That’s really what’s driving the concern of a lot of senators on the Hill,” the staffer said. “I think, from that perspective, you could potentially anticipate a number of senators putting holds on Ford.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually laid out the administration’s policy fairly clearly last month when she announced that Assad should step down and that the U.S. would impose sanctions on Syria. “We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle and we respect their wishes,” Clinton said then. Perhaps that’s what’s irking these Republican hold outs so much: that the U.S. won’t attack Syria.

Testifying to save his job weeks before Clinton’s announcement, Ford told the Senate, “I think we owe it to [Syrian pro-democracy activists] to remain supportive and it try to build that support wisely, carefully but to build that support.”

Today, despite his prior advocacy for terrorism and his smears of Muslims, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) testified before a British parliamentary inquiry into the root causes of domestic Muslim radicalization. At one point, MP Keith Vaz asked King if he supports “better controls on the internet,” on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, in the context of extremist elements using the internet to get their message out. King replied that he did, but he also lamented the “First Amendment issue” with doing so and said that he’s trying to find a way to do it without violating freedom of speech:

VAZ: Would you like to see better controls on the internet? On these social media sites like Facebook and Twitter?

KING: I do, now we have a First Amendment issue which does not really confront you or really pertain in Great Britain. So we’re trying to find ways, how can it be done without violating the First Amendment, involving freedom of speech or communication.

Watch it:

Explaining his prior statements in support of the then-terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA), King said that he stands by these statements “in the context that they were said.”

Our guest blogger is Shir Harel, a web development consultant based in Tel Aviv and Managing Editor of +972 Magazine.

This isn’t a “slippery slope” story about the dangerous wave of anti-democratic laws passed recently in Israel’s Knesset. At +972 Magazine, a digital publication of independent reporting and commentary from Israel and the Palestinian territories, we tell that story often.

When you wake up and realize that one of those laws has made it as risky for a young Israeli media organization to print certain political opinions as running libel, or violating copyright, something serious has already changed.

On July 11 the Israeli Knesset passed the Boycott Prohibition Law, which enables Israeli citizens to file civil suits against other Israelis who publicly endorse boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or even Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

In the days following, as our website ran coverage and analysis of the law, I found a new responsibility tacked on to my editing role at +972. In order to keep our site protected, I scoured our bloggers’ writing on the law for wording that could suggest they support boycotts of Israel or Israelis. If we were to run those words, any Israeli who feels they adversely affect his or her business or institution can now sue us for damages — even without proving loss of revenues.

“I am deeply sorry for this,” wrote our chief editor, explaining +972’s new policy in light of this law. “No one is to post to the site a call for boycott. It’s not ideology, we simply can’t afford it.”

Because it leaves us now exposed to suits that threaten to shut our young project down, this law has paralyzed +972 Magazine’s free discussion of one of the major issues in the global debate of our region. The Palestinian call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel is a hotly contested issue that ignites passions across the political spectrum, and our website is no exception. To some bloggers BDS is deeply offensive, to some it is misguided, while to others it’s a moral imperative. The debate that surrounds it is required reading for anyone interested in Middle East politics.

Conducting rational, diverse, and free debate on issues exactly like these has been a hallmark of +972 Magazine since it was founded. Yet the Boycott Prohibition Law has now killed off open debate of BDS for us, along with a host of other questions to issues we’ve explored in the past, for example: Can a boycott of settlement-made products be effective and just? Is it right to boycott Israeli universities or cultural institutions? These are good questions, which deserve to be tackled from all sides. But some opinions on these issues are still protected under freedom of speech laws, while others aren’t. We still have a right to speak freely and oppose boycotts, but speaking in favor of them can now be considered a civil offense. There are now wrong answers to these questions, ones the state will not stand by us and protect.

We are proud to be a collective of bloggers whose opinions span the political spectrum, supplemented with a diverse roster of guest contributions. Yet this law has made it impossible for us to maintain an equal platform for everyone to make their argument heard. What’s more, as our website is legally responsible for comments our readers leave, we are now compelled to monitor and edit any comments that voice support for boycotts. We can’t even allow our readers the chance to freely argue back with us.

This deeply anti-democratic law was anticipated and debated for months as it moved through the legislative process. After it passed, many felt disbelief that such a blatant infringement of freedom of speech could be legislated in Israel. But the day I edited a post for the first time not for style, language or form, but for its opinions, the magnitude of what happened hit me. What I’m doing now isn’t editing — I’ve become a censor.

In 2009, the world’s largest mercenary army Blackwater changed its name to Xe in a bid to rehabilitate its public image. Now, the latest entry to rehabilitate Blackwater’s image comes in an unlikely form: a first-person shooter video game. Blackwater founder Erik Prince has teamed up with Zombie Studios — the developers of Blacklight: Tango Down, which scored at an abysmal 60.24 percent on video game review aggregator Gamerankings.com — to develop an Xbox 360 Kinect game called Blackwater where players can be a Blackwater mercenary in the midst of a civil war in a North African town.

With the Kinect accessory to the Xbox 360, players use their full bodies in front of a motion-detecting camera to control the game. Because the game is Kinect-exclusive, that means that the only way players will be able to take part in the experience is to physically behave as if they are Xe mercenaries — they can’t just hold controllers. CNN interviewed Prince about the game and asked him about how he thinks the game will appeal to gamers. Prince said the “excitement and realism” would be the main draws as well as the “fun“:

CNN: How do you think the Blackwater brand will appeal to the gaming demographic?

Prince: I believe “Blackwater” will have a unique appeal to gamers, particularly on the Kinect platform. The physical, visual and virtual feel of participating in a mission brings a level of excitement and realism to the game that is hard to match. And frankly, it’s fun. I think gamers will really enjoy playing the game.

One of the lead designers of the game uploaded a YouTube video to demonstrate how it is played using the player’s whole body. Watch it:

CNN asked Prince if he plays any video games himself. “I’m afraid I don’t have time to play any games these days,” he replied. “I certainly played a lot when I was a kid and I know it helped develop my hand to eye coordination.”