Rhetorical Analysis for Chaim Weizmann

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

Rhetorical Analysis on Chaim Weitzmann's 1948 Speech

Drew Pace

Chaim Weizmann Speech before Zion

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

Rhetorical Analysis onnChaim Weitzmann's 1948 Speech

Drew Pace

Chaim Weizmann Speech before Zion

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

The Religious Appeals for Churchill and Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels’ “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose” and Winston Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat” speeches may contain similar structures and appeals, but an appeal on religion establishes a significant difference between these two speeches.  Yes, these two pieces both make a point on religion and I reason why to fight, but both take very different approaches to the appeal.  Despite the different pathways, both speakers are able to use rhetoric to convince their audience and fight for their particular country prior to World War II. 

In a speech before the public before WWII, Winston Churchill stated, “what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime.”  In this sentence Britain’s new Prime Minister use God as an appeal on why the English should make sacrifices and be prepared to fight in a great war.  He directly uses God’s name and indirectly mentions the devil when referring to Germany as “a monstrous tyranny…etc.”  Nearby, in central Europe Joseph Goebbels made a similar speech on why Germany should fight against all enemies in the coming war.  He states: “International Jewry is the devilish ferment of decomposition that finds cynical satisfaction in plunging the world into the deeper chaos and destroying ancient cultures that it played no role in building.”  Omitting the fact that this statement is a complete fallacy, it takes a slightly different approach to religion by directly accusing Judaism as the devil and indirectly claiming that Germany would be God (in his mind). 

The morals of the Allies and the Axis were on opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to the war.  This is extremely significant when you look back on the two speeches.  Churchill directly referenced God in his speech and, as a result, took a more positive approach to the war.  He rarely downplayed Germany; he primarily promoted his own country.  Goebbels directly referenced the devil in his speech and made significant attacks on England, Judaism, “Bolshevism”.  As a result, his argument became primarily negative.  It is quite a coincidence that, if you look back on the Second World War, the Allies’ moral practice of war overcame the Axis’ immoral practices.  Fighting for the moral right surfaced on top while fighting to commit mass genocide plundered inevitably. 

     

   

Machiavelli and Thoreau

In Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” we find that in order to counter complete deprivation of voice, typical civilians must devote their lives to stopping “the machine” that is the government.  “The Morals of the Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli displayed the idea that a prince who could manipulate his people in order to retain office would be the ideal goal for any prince of his time.  Though these two contrast each other through their conflicting viewpoints, they share some very common ground when referring to power. 

At one point in his essay, Thoreau states that politicians often resist the public’s viewpoints in order to further themselves personally.  Meanwhile, in Machiavelli’s piece he states that the underlying goal for a prince was to keep his throne.  Both of these scenarios display the major government’s efforts to steal power from the people.  First, in “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau explains that many elected officials tend to serve themselves rather than the community.  Often they support the majority, silence the minority, and wreak the benefits of their own powers.  It is in this case that Thoreau calls government a “machine”.  With a bad connotation, Thoreau intended to argue that those who step in front of the government are the ones that will topple it down.  Machiavelli’s excerpt expresses the power of virtue and how many different core values both good and bad are necessary to keep one’s power in the kingdom.  One of these reasons was fear.  Many times politicians would try to intimidate their people so they will be inclined to vote for them or support them during reelections and wars.  This intimidation could be very responsible for the silencing of people to the point where they won’t stand in front of “the machine”.  By having the same core structure based on fear, Thoreau explains to his readers how to work around it while Machiavelli explains to his readers how to enforce it.  From either ends of the spectrum both philosophers had totally different viewpoints that, together, built the overall problem at hand for the public.        

Minutes to Hours, Why Athletes Don't Need Gym

The typical high school practice can vary in length based on what sport is being taken in.  Most sports hold practice for anywhere between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours.  Track holds its practices slightly less on most days, based on the fact that track and field members spend the entire time working without break.  Every other high school practice demands extensive physical output from each player throughout its occurrence with few breaks.  As a result, high school athletes can exercise for tremendous amounts of time after school each day throughout and prior to the season.  They are often swamped with schoolwork due to the minimal time they are given for its completion and, therefore, athletes should not be forced to take gym.    

As a member of the Brien McMahon football team, I’ve tallied up that our players typically spend at least 15 hours a week practicing along with a 3-hour game.  At our school a typical period lasts 47 minutes so, in essence, one gym class lasts 47 minutes.  The bulk of actual exercise outputted during a class would total approximately 30 minutes thanks for elapsed time for changing and attendance.  A full year of gym, the requirement, would then total as about 5,400 minutes of exercise, or 90 hours.  Ninety hours is chump-change for athletes, many of which could work for 60-75 hours within a single season.  Offseason workouts could add to this number and one could easily make the inference that an athlete’s physical output for his/her sport far exceeds the physical output for the entire physical education credit.  This is based solely on time, assuming that an athlete would work just as hard in gym class as on the field after school.  This assumption couldn’t be more wrong.  

Ask anyone the question: “Would you rather have an ‘A’ in gym class or the starting position on your sports team?” and they will surely answer the latter.  A starting position brings forth pride and a sense of accomplishment while acquiring an ‘A’ in gym is merely unimportant and expected in terms of society’s views.  As a result, only imbeciles could possibly conjure the thought that an athlete works harder in gym class than his/her own sport.  The idea is simply ignorant and infuriating.

The time left to athletes following their practice and school day also plays a major role in why athletes shouldn’t be forced to take gym.  A student-athlete is a student first and an athlete second.  For some athletes, especially those taking Honors or Advanced Placement classes, a simple 47 minutes here or there is vastly treasured and appreciated.  Why would it be necessary to force a typical student-athlete to waste his/her time taking gym when they could be making educational advancements?  The exercise is there.  It is after school each and every day and, therefore, it seems extremely unnecessary to force the average high school athlete to waste his/her time, time that could be put to better use.    

More time for athletes could definitely result in higher academic and athletic achievement as well as better, less stressful lifestyles.  Constant physical output can really drain the average athlete and, as a result could deprive them of necessary energy and sleep.  Many athletes would much rather start their homework in study hall than wait to get started at 6:00 pm after school when they get home.  The burden of physicality on athletes is already high, why add the mental pressure by putting them into situations where sleep deprivation and mental hardship could occur?         

Toulmin Analysis

Claim: Athletes should not be forced to take Physical Education in high school in order to graduate

In my blog, “Wear and Tear Bares a Scare”, I stress how athletes shouldn’t be forced to take a mandatory physical education class.  This claim is the claim I’ve constantly been using for my social change blogs.  

Qualifier: Only high school athletes would be exempt from taking a gym class.

In the claim is the main qualifier “high school athletes”.  My blog focuses entirely on why athletes in particular shouldn’t have to take gym, not everyone else’s reasons.  By focusing it specifically on high school athletes I intend to set a specific audience and listeners.

Good Reasons: Many athletes are kept up late at night finishing homework because they come home late from their sport.  The hours of sleep they get are crucial and saving energy is vastly appreciated.

I can be the first one to say  being tired at the end of every day is the worst feeling ever.  To be honest it gets quite depressing having the same routine every day thanks to your sport and necessary schoolwork.  Sleep deprivation and lack of energy can not only hinder an athlete on the field, but also in the classroom.  I’ve felt this experience hands on.

Further exercising an already-exhausted body can risk injury.

The more one stressed certain muscles in their body the more susceptible the person will be to muscle injuries.  With intense exercise one’s muscle layers slightly tear and reform over night.  This is how muscle layers are formed and one of the main reasons why being sore.

 

Having study hall instead of physical education could greatly benefit an athlete’s already tight schedule, allowing him or her valuable time to relax or get proactive with schoolwork.

A study hall  could be very beneficial when it comes to taking a nap, going to the guidance office, meeting a teach, or just plain simply doing your homework.  No one wants to come home straight from a tough practice just to work on homework.  As stated prior, a study hall could efficiently save time for the athlete and provide them with a less depressing night following school.

Warrant: No one wants to be rushing from one activity to the next with little downtime to relax.  No one wants to risk injury  unneededly.  

It is human nature to look after yourself and your well being.  Its very tough to analyze this warrant.

Backing: Imagine feeling rusted over every morning when you wake up, unable to move freely.  Tight. This is something athletes become accustomed to every day.  

The language used in the blog this Toulmin Analysis is based upon relies heavily on pathos to alter the point of view of the readers.  By adding significant emotion to the backing you can clearly define the warrant.  And lastly if you can easily deliver your warrant than the argument is more than likely on point.

Evan Collins pushed his body too far while running the pacer test, a mandatory state requirement, and ended up hospitalized for a few weeks.  This activity in gym sparked up the aftermath of his Chrone’s Disease.     

Here is one example of the use of pathos to spur a change in the audience’s thinking.  This provides emotional support for the warrant so it could efficiently connect the major claim and its reasons/data.  

Rebuttal: No Rebuttal

-