Analysis Of Speech To The Israeli Knesset By Anwar Sadet

726 Words2 Pages

Substantial speeches do not intend to manipulate the audience but rather utilise powerful rhetoric, in order to aid the audience in developing their own judgment and thus establish a relationship. It is clear that despite contextual differences of texts, the amalgamation of textual integrity, purpose and form establishes a resonating message to audiences. Therefore, composers employ ‘powerful’ rhetoric and cohesiveness in their speeches, not to manipulate but allow audience to enhance their knowledge and understanding. This is undoubtedly clear in Anwar Sadat’s “Speech to the Israeli Knesset’ and Noel Pearson ‘An Australian history for all of us’, which both exhibit the power of words in refining our perspectives and ideas. Therefore, it is …show more content…

With the continuous conflict occurring between the Arabs and Israelites, his intention were to achieve a peace settlement, with a substantial speech using powerful rhetoric. Sadat utilises biblical allusions as he asserts that justice justice streams from God’s commandments of “...love, sincerity, purity and peace”, striking at the core of what is the most important for humanity. The utilisation of biblical allusion allows the Israeli to realise that they live by the word of God, and the word of God had no saying of having a war between one another. This assists the audience in acknowledging and understanding Sadat’s message of the need to achieve peace and further strengthen the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. Thus, realise that the speech is not to manipulate the Israel audience, but rather come together and overlook their differences with the Egyptians, to achieve peace and save humanity. Furthermore, Sadat’s conviction of his intrinsic passion for peace is made convincing and genuine through the language in which he articulates. Anaphora through the rhetorical question, “how can we achieve permanent peace based on justice?... Why don’t we destroy this barrier together” presents the three central values of unity, peace and justice. Inclusive …show more content…

Pearson conveys the need to take responsibility for the consequences of past discriminations, encouraging open, harmonious and hopeful beliefs of reconciliation as opposed to assigning guilt. He calls for the metaphoric “opening of hearts” as Australians strive to overcome inequities of the past and build a future based on the beliefs of justice and equality. Pearson expresses his hope for reconciliation through negative diction and alliteration, “Legacy of unutterable shame” and “derogation and diminution”, representing the historic suffering of Indigenous Australians. Thus, it is clearly evident that he does not manipulate the audience into having to act against the misfortune of the past, but rather have an emotional connection with them through powerful rhetoric to indirectly assist the audience to gain an insight of the emotional and physical damage of Aborigines. Furthermore, Pearson also incorporate inclusive language through the repetition of “our nation” and the action that “we” must take to correct our past injustices. This is effective in reconciling the divide between European Australians, whilst reinforcing national values. Pearson’s approach depicts society’s challenge to “accept responsibility and accept shame”, reflecting his belief that this was the ideal solution to address reconciliation.

Open Document