Rhetorical Analysis Outline on Chaim Weizmann Speech

My Rhetorical Analysis Outline on

Chaim Weizmann’s Speech

Purpose: To enforce power and show that he’s here for the Jewish people in the process of reclaiming Jerusalem

Audience: The Jewish Zionist; Palestinian Muslims and Arabs; the UN

Context: First he was appointed of the Zionist Commission in 1918 by the British. He then became the president of the World Zionist Organization until 1946. Eventually he became the first president of Israel in February of 1949 with the help of having friends in high places in America and Britain. However, in 1948 Jerusalem was under the control of the UN.  

Claims: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish; the Jewish should come together in helping to take their land back

Warrants: The Jewish fought and protected Jerusalem in the past; it was their land before the Palestinian Arabs came along (faulty warrants weakens argument a lot)

Appeals: Pathos-creating a sense that a part of Palestine, specifically Jerusalem, belongs to the Jewish people; creating a sense of patriotism for their old land

Technique:

·         Use of rhetorical questions. The purpose and use for this is to show that he has knowledge of what’s happening in Palestine at the time. To show that he knows the struggle the Jewish people are going through. To explain that no one has their back, except him and he’s going to get Israel recognized as a country. “Did they lift a finger…for months on end?”

·         Diction: “quintessence”: That Jerusalem is everything to the Jewish people. “…lodestar in all our wanderings”: Guiding light in life; showed them the way. “…eternal mother…”: Jerusalem is nurturing to them, taken care of them, taught the Jewish people their morals, where they emerged. “…with your blood and your sacrifice”: very pathos filled, make people want rally together to reclaim Jerusalem, makes people want to trust him because he knows the people’s hardships

·         Metaphors: “Jerusalem is the eternal mother of the Jewish people…”

Jargon: “…far-flung Diaspora…”=Jews that are spread out and not living in Israel

Tone:  In the beginning very sorrowful and mournful about the lost, gradually becomes more accusing, nostalgic, and angry towards the Arabs and the British for not supporting them the way they wanted them to

General Evaluation: Very weak argument because he had a faulty warrants and very little to no evidence. The argument was full of pathos very little to no logos at all. I wish he had more direct evidence; the argument would’ve been more solid. Filled with a lot of rhetorical questions, could have had a more of a variety of techniques to make the argument stronger. His argument was only good at getting the emotions he wanted out of the audience he was speaking to. One thing I do want to point out though is that this speech was delivered in a different language. Some words could have been lost in translation because some words or phrases don’t have a translation. Also the translator could have bias causing the speaker to appear differently than originally intended.