Last year, Senate Republicans refused to confirm Robert Ford as U.S. ambassador to Syria, claiming — in an purely ideological sense presumably — that sending a high-level American envoy to Damascus would “reward” the Assad regime for bad behavior. President Obama recess appointed Ford anyway, and his bold visit to Hama last July amid the Arab Spring inspired anti-regime demonstrations symbolized the importance of his presence there (see amateur video of Ford attending the wake of a Syrian activist killed by Syrian forces).

Yet conservatives still wanted Ford out of Damascus. Many argued that the White House should withdraw the American envoy in response to Bashar al Assad’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy activists there. However, the Obama administration, and even Ford himself, continued to make their case. “We owe it to them to remain supportive,” Ford said of the Syrians in his confirmation hearing last month. “Lower level diplomats are great, but they don’t carry the weight, they don’t carry the prestige of the president’s personal representative,” he told the Daily Caller this week.

However, some, like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who opposed Ford’s confirmation last year, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who called on Obama to recall Ford just last April, now see the wisdom in keeping him there. Now, the neocons are coming around too. Yesterday, Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Initiative — a group that as recently as July was still calling on Ford to be recalled — said “the Senate should confirm him as soon as possible.” And today in the Los Angeles Times, fellow right-wing hawk Max Boot followed suit:

Our embattled man in Damascus, Ambassador Robert Ford, is threatened not only by the Syrian regime but by Republican senators who are dragging their feet on confirming his appointment. Their opposition, which is founded on the premise that we should not dignify Bashar Assad’s regime with an ambassador, is understandable but misguided. Ford has been a profile in courage in opposing Assad. [...]

It is possible that Ford may be expelled by the Syrian government in any case, but as long as he can stay in Damascus, he will support the demands of the protesters. The Senate should give him the opportunity to continue his valuable work.

It’s still unclear what Republicans in the Senate will do. Ford will be forced to come home if he is not confirmed by the end of the year. An aide to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — who placed the hold on Ford’s nomination last year — signaled recently that he would do it again when his confirmation comes to a vote. Another Senate GOP aide told Foreign Policy, “You could potentially anticipate a number of senators putting holds on Ford.” But now that progressives and conservatives are speaking out with one voice calling for the Senate to keep Ford in Damascus, will Senate Republicans relent and make the right choice?

Yesterday, Josh Rogin reported some interesting comments on the Middle East peace process from Bill Clinton in a roundtable with bloggers on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. Criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for moving the goalposts on a peace deal, Clinton also lamented Israel’s failure to respond to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a huge missed opportunity.

“The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians… we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,’” Clinton said. “This is huge… It’s a heck of a deal.

Clinton is right. It was a heck of a deal, so much so that earlier this year a group of prominent Israelis, including top former military and intelligence officials, put together their own initiative in response.

But the Arab Peace Initiative poses a real problem for conservatives who like to maintain the fiction that Israel has always said “yes” to peace while the Arabs keep saying “no.” The preferred method for dealing with this problem is usually just to pretend it never happened, as in this recent video featuring Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

Former Bush administration Middle East adviser Elliott Abrams, on the other hand, takes a different approach: rank misrepresentation:

That “deal” was adopted at an Arab League summit attended by only 10 of the 22 Arab leaders of the day, and among those not in attendance were the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt, and Yasser Arafat—suggesting that support for this proposal may have been quite limited.

Abrams is right that the initiative was adopted at an Arab League summit attended by only 10 of the 22 Arab leaders of the day. But for some reason Abrams doesn’t mention that it was unanimously reaffirmed at the 2007 Arab League summit, in which all 22 Arab member states but one (Libya) were present.

As for the “limited” support for the initiative, the king of Jordan limited his support to addressing a joint meeting of Congress to attempt to gain backing for it. In further evidence of Jordanian disinterest, the Jordanian embassy created an entire web page explaining the initiative in detail.

The president of Egypt’s support for the initiative, in contrast, was limited to merely publishing an op-ed in the New York Times touting it as the basis for regional peace.

Certainly there are criticisms to be made of the initiative, such as the Arab League’s insistence that Israel accept it first before offering changes. But the fact remains that the deal was entirely consistent with multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and by refusing to even officially respond to an offer of full normalization and end of conflict, the Israelis reinforced the perception that they aren’t interested in a negotiated peace, just as the Palestinians did when they walked away from Camp David in 2000.

Cross-posted from Middle East Progress.

Today, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formally asked that Palestine become a full member of the United Nations despite staunch opposition from Israel and the U.S. On cue, Republicans are attacking the U.N. for even considering such a request. Joining House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reissued his call to pass his bill — the Solidarity with Israel Act — which would eliminate U.S. Funding for the U.N. if the Security Council or the General Assembly changes Palestine’s current status, and thus “votes to harm our trusted ally,” he said.

But in a somewhat surprising turn, former Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed such measures. When Pajamas Media asked whether he agreed that defunding the U.N. was warranted in light of the Palestinian Authority’s effort, Cheney said “I don’t think that’s necessarily the right response”:

CHENEY: I’ve never been a great fan of the United Nations over the years…I’ve felt that they didn’t exercise they’re authority they way they might. But in terms of the basic notion that we are going to defund the U.N., I haven’t given it any thought. People get severely agitated about what’s going on at the United Nations, they used to up in Congress….There are a lot of Americans who look askance at the United Nations and probably would in a heart beat vote for defunding. I don’t think that’s necessarily the right response here. We’ll see what happens.

Watch it:

There’s good reason to question the move. As Center for American Progress’s Sarah Margon notes, such bills set “a dramatic precedent that far exceeds previous anti-U.N. initiatives.” Not only would it force the U.N. to adopt a voluntary budget model, it would “end funding for Palestinian refugees, restrict the use of U.S. funds to the goals outlined by Congress, and stop U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations” until reforms are made.

What’s more, these measures ignore the U.N’s recent successes in “galvanizing international action” that aligns with U.S. interests — be it in Libya, Syria, or Iran. Along with providing a more cost effective way to face and coordinate on global challenges, Margonn also notes that U.N. participation “enhance[s] our ability to promote our agenda by leveraging key actors.”

Nonetheless, right-wing conservatives seem wedded to their dogmatic campaign against the U.N. As GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich summed up last night, any U.N. action that may work against U.S. interests sparks their question, “Why are you giving them anything?”

This afternoon at the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presented Palestine’s formal application for full membership to the United Nations:

ABBAS: The time has come for my courageous and proud people after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering to live like other peoples of the earth free in a sovereign and independent homeland. Mr. President, i would like to inform you that before delivering this statement I, in my capacity as president of the state of Palestine, and chairman of the executive committee of Palestine Liberalization Organization, submitted to his excellency Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations an application for the admission of Palestine on the basis of the borders of June 4, 1967 with al Quds al Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital as a full member of the United Nations. This is a copy of the application.

Abbas received a standing ovation after his speech. The American, Canadian, and Israeli delegations, among others, remained silent. Watch the clip:

Spencer Ackerman’s reports on Islamophobic training sessions at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have sent the Bureau into damage control mode. On Thursday, the FBI held a conference call with Muslim civil rights groups to apologize for the offensive training materials, which Ackerman has published over the past week.

The FBI has promised a “comprehensive review of all training and reference materials,” but Ackerman, in an article published today, reveals that the work of well-known Islamophobes permeates the FBI’s training culture and the internal reference resources available to FBI agents.

Ackerman reports that the mandatory online orientation material for the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), included the following description of Sunni Muslims:

Sunni Muslims have been prolific in spawning numerous and varied fundamentalist extremist terrorist organizations. Sunni core doctrine and end state have remained the same and they continue to strive for Sunni Islamic domination of the world to prove a key Quranic assertion that no system of government or religion on earth can match the Quran’s purity and effectiveness for paving the road to God.

An examination of the FBI’s library in Quantico, which is not open to the public, revealed that the Bureau stocks a wide range of resources on Islam but includes a number of books by well known anti-Islam authors Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer.

Pipes and Spencer are featured prominently in the Center for American Progress’ new report, “Fear, Inc.,” which outlines the small but influential group of individuals and institutions who help promote anti-Muslim hatred in the U.S.

Spencer, who claims that “Islam is not a religion of peace” and has suggested that President Obama may be a Muslim, gained notoriety after it was revealed that Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik’s manifesto included 162 references to Spencer and his blog Jihad Watch.

Pipes famously observed that “all immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” He also plays a key role in the Islamophobia echo chamber by repeating the falsehood that Obama is a former Muslim who “practiced Islam.”

The combination of Islamophobic presentation and the FBI’s apparent endorsement of noted anti-Muslim “experts” like Spencer and Pipes raises serious questions about the FBI’s counterterrorism training and the Bureau’s understanding of Muslim Americans.

Earlier this month, the Seattle Times reported on a disastrous presentation by an FBI agent at a community outreach workshop. The failed presentation offers insights into how federal law enforcement officers’ training has seriously hampered their ability to engage with Muslim communities.