Ok, ok, lets spill the beans

Now I know how exited everyone is with what I got with my SPM results and so on, that on the day, of my SPM results not much of you actually got the chance to see what i really got, not to mention my expression when i got it, well if you want to see my face how i got my SPM results you could just go to Maahad's official website and see the album. there's a pic of me, smiling with a peace hand, you won't miss it.

SPM as we know it, is very important, not to mention very tiring, but the real thing isn't actually about how many As you got or how many scholarships you got (ok in my case, it does matters), but what really matters is what you did to strive for it. What did you do to achieve such results? Did you work hard? Do you think you deserve it? How did you react when you got your SPM results?

All these questions maybe to your perspective is not so much important but actually it all counts to whether you're somebody successful or not. Look at someone who got 13As and everyone "thought" he will do great in his future, that he might be some minister or some VIP or such. He got Bank Negara scholarships and went to the UK to further his studies, but by the end of the day guess what? he gave up in UK, he "thinks" it was too competitive for him that he fall out and end up being kick back to Malaysia (I'm not pointing out Malaysian Uni are bad, I just got IIUM that's great).

Another story from my sis (Nafeesa) whom is now in Jordan, there was this KISAS dude (yes somebody from KISAS) and somehow he/she (I don't know if it was a girl or boy, i just knew he got 13As straight and went for Islamic Banking) couldn't cope with the harsh areas of Jordan. It was called culture shock because he never went to so many hardship in his life. He's the type of person you would see getting straight As, no health or peer problems, getting everything he wants type of dude. But when reality struck, it hits you till you're out of control. This dude's story is a sad one and I pray for his Success.

The point is as I just stated from last year (hopefully you were listening), is that We have to be prepared, always, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. There are some among us whom were very, very, very lucky (I don't need to point out who).

A simple philosophy (since I'm studying philosophy for my SAT's right now), the philosophy of war, which I read from the Chinese "art of war", just to point out we are all at war, one way or the other:

• You are acting at your strongest when your strength is at your weakest.
• When you are superior towards other, then act modestly, do not be too proud like a fool or else you will surely fall when reality strikes.
• Be cautious when you are arriving towards victory, remember victory is only so when you don't have any other threats.
• Learn from others, there experience might be far more valuable than all the preparations you made.

I don't want us o get high As just to fall down crashing again, we have to stay wise yet cheerful with everything that's happening. you might be wondering from the start, how many As I actually got and why in the world haven't i told you well, to spill the beans, I miraculously got 8As: 2A+, 1A, 5A-, 3B+, 2C+. With an excellent award for English as among the highest obtained in Malaysia (just got this letter a few days after SPM results).

It's not important (Considering I have SATs with me now), what's important is how we react towards it, will we be crying? happy? or angry? The best among us is when anything happens to us, we will still be able to give out a 100% when the time comes.

So now it's your journey to achieve higher than this score (although I'm sure you can't beat my TOEFL score, 758/1000). And to do more incredible feats after this. I wish you all the best of luck, May Allah Bless you in your upcoming Exams. Pray for my SATs exam which will be held by the end of May, Wassalam.

Debate: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Is a two-state solution justified? Compared to a one-state solution?

Background and context

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has revolved around one particularly pointed question and debate: should the Palestinian people be given their own state, or is a two-state solution to the conflict the best idea among the various alternatives? Barack Obama explicitly supports a two-state solution, saying that "a two-state solution is the only solution". While many in Israel and elsewhere oppose the idea, the two-state solution is considered the consensus solution under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007. While alternatives exist (such as a one-state solution or forms of autonomy under the status quo) Palestinian, Israeli, and global leaders are primarily engaged in the debate surrounding a two-state solution.

This is just a simple review about the debate, if you want to know more go here.

I'm just gonna go to the issues and how is it debatable, there are three altogether:

Peace: Can a two-state solution bring peace?

Pro

• Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state While it is nice to believe that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principals of inclusion, while nice, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature."

• A two-state solution is the least bad option Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

• General statements in support of a two-state solution US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."

Con

• A two-state conflict will not end conflict Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."

• Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state. Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'"

• General statements in favor of a one-state solution Edward Said, a famous Palestinian writer and activist, advocated for a one-state solution, arguing: "Two people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity asserted in a bi-national state."[1]

Palestinians: Do Palestinians want their own state? Can they govern themselves?

Pro

• Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop. Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."

Con

• Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."

• Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."

• A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional "Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: "The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government."

Regional security: Would a two state solution help regional stability?

Pro

• Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

Con

• A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "King Abdullah II is not being straight on this issue either. He doesn't want a Palestinian state between Jordan and Israel because of the threat to Jordan that a Palestinian state would pose to him."

4C "Forseeing" how you say.....

Salam...........

Our recent debate training has stress out on two main things: How to tackle a Politic and Economy type motion. Now some of you who aren't from Maahad Hamidiah might be gigling wanting this type of information, well my juniors didn't had any problem understanding, both themes are actually a piece of cake, more easier than "Media and Entertainment" ( I don't read about that much).

But here, I won't be talking about politics and Economy, rather I would be talking on styles of debating, as right now, that's the main issue we need to solve!!!

I have to admit, your brains are way better than mines when I was your age, there were those with critical analysis (Amira), in depth elaboration (Aisyah F2) and killer rebuttals (Wani, ok maybe i just made that part up), but what was more important was actually the Style or method of speaking.

There are some people that has all those great facts and figures but when they speak it just makes me bored. (seeing how slow and low their voice are, you don't need to ask why).

So here are some tips to stylish speaking, I like to call it the 4C ("for see" or "Visualize")

1. Calm. A debater (well a good one) is very calm, he/she thinks first before saying it out and keeps their mood very, very calm that even if somebody was pointing a gun at head point they wouldn't notice it (well speaking in front of an audience is a death defying act). There is also the fear factor of going in front of an audience. I whatever situation, you need to keep calm. Don't care of anything what other people are doing (especially your opponents, they really like to annoy people)
2. Cool. A great debater is no hypocrite, they are no actors. they become themselves or in other words "Cool". It's very cool to be just yourself. Don't start being very mad or very political or out of your age (your 14 and suddenly your talking as if your really actually the Prime Minister, with that boring monotonous voice, BORING!!!). Even judges like it, they can actually see whether your lying to yourself and being a hypocrite (well...... good judges of course), they see you as if you are talking to them about their favorite shirt and games and hobbies (make friends with the judges....)
3. Conviction. As much as this might contradict the "cool" style you need to show conviction in your speech. Say it as if it's important, "Obama must lead US to a brighter future!!!" (even if you don't care crap whether US has a brighter future....) but you need to show that the what you say is important, because well...... it is important. the best thing is to choose what words to stress out before you begin your speech. e.g: THW subsidies local fish. Stress the words Subsidies and Fish as if does two things are so important (even if you don't know what's subsidy and you don't like eating fish).
4. Creative. Is it better saying: " I love you" or "if I only was allowed to call one person I would call you", the later is longer but much more dramatic and creative and feel-able (So who would you really call?), rather than just using one every day used phrase lets used an original phrasing, like what I used when to rebut the government about there credibility to imply a policy: "There policy has no credibility, it's not incredible it's un-credible" or " You want to know what's our proposal to this problem.........(pause for a sec for drama).... not yours that's for sure". It's creative and original.

Once you controlled all these four C's you'll be a very charismatic person. charisma is literally the art of saying the right thing at the right time for the right speech at the right audience. It's the time when some leader says something and God-knows-why there will be some dramatic music at your ears and you'll have goosebumps somehow ready to follow your leader to whatever doom he says (Yep till that point), The prophet is a charismatic person, that's why he's able to influence a large body to the eyes of death itself.

Good Luck all of you..................