An inherent tension between the actual and the possible is

revealed through the development of ideas in a speech.

To what extent does your interpretation of Bandlers Faith,
Hope and Reconciliation and at least one other speech align
with this view? In your response, make detailed reference to
Faith, Hope and Reconciliation and at least ONE other
speech set for study.
Faith Bandlers address Faith Hope and Reconciliation and Anwar
Sadats speech to the Israeli Knesset both strongly address the
prevalent conflict within their contexts to create a sense of urgency
towards a possible future that embraces pacifism and harmony.
They identify the barrier that act as the inherent tensions to
achieving the much idealised universal human desires for peace and
undermines them to encourage a union based on tolerance and
acceptance. Bandler specifically alludes to the discrimination that
permeates across a large portion aspect of the Australian
community and, through her effective use of ethos and pathos,
encourages the future generation of change makers to break down
the tensions between the actual animosity and possible harmony.
Similarly, Sadat speaks to the Israeli wartime enemy and through
his effective use of logos, he accentuates a need to overlook
personal animus and turn the actual tragedy into lasting cohesion.
As such, it is undeniable that through a successful employment of
Aristotles 3 modes of persuasion, both orators explores universal
human desires for peace and thus, possess textual integrity and
creates an enduring speech which reflects upon the inherent
tensions between the actual tragic reality and possible harmonious
future.
Faith Bandlers oration closely effectively examines the elements in
society, which have fuelled the injustices, and struggles faced by
the Aboriginal communities and provide alternative pathways that
incorporate the indigenous communitys universal desire for peace.
Bandler speaks from the authoritative position of a renowned
Aboriginal activist who is speaking to an audience that is well aware
of the injustices faced by Aborigines as a result of the Bringing
Them Home reports, which were published in 1997. She highlights
how reconciliation has slowed since 1967 and expresses frustration
through her use of anacoenosis as she questions why is it so hard
to find commonalities? As such, she alludes to an ethical
responsibility that encourages a shift away from the contexts reality
of mistreatment. The most effective manner in which she calls for
the possible peace is through her use of irony as she undermines
the quality of free speech. Those who sponsored racism excused
some of their terrible utterances in the name of free speech. This
directly appeals to the audiences sense of pathos as the stark and
disappointed tone emphasizes the attitudes of society to be a
primary cause of inherent tensions. As such, she positions the

audience to agree with her need for peace as they observe how
such an equal characteristic can propagate such an unequal
consequence. Bandler continues to build on the free speech motif as
she furthers her call for pacifism through the imagery they are
chained in their stubbornnessbut we are free to go forward
without them to undermine effects of free speech. The metaphor of
chain alludes to a history of injustice as well as symbolically
suggesting the primitive nature of racism and discrimination. As
such, she suggests that the free individuals challenge the current
reality and embrace a possible future of unity and pacifism. Such a
call is undeniably relevant even today as mining companies
continue to displace Aboriginal communities from their homeland.
Bandlers oration proves to be highly effective today as, today,
groups like Reconciliation Australia and Racism No Way seek to
educate encourage society to challenge the actual discrimination
and adopt a considerate that will allow for the possible peace.
Hence, it is undeniable that Bandler delivers an enduring and
timeless oration that examines the inherent tensions between the
actual and possible through her exploration of the universal desire
for peace.
Similarly, Anwar Sadat also acknowledges the universal desire of the
citizens of the Middle East for a possibly lasting peace based on
justice and religious inclusion. The genuine nature of his call for
peace and desire to end the actual sectarian conflict is accentuated
by his actions as, being the PM of the leading Arab State, he risked
his life to acknowledge the Israelites and initiate peace negotiations.
Unlike Bandler, who relies on pathos, Sadat employs logos using an
ongoing allusion to religious duty. He begins his speech effectively
by highlighting the unity of God, We all, on this land, the land of
God, we all; Muslims, Christians, Jews, worship God and no one but
God. The repetition of God and the inclusive pronoun reaffirms the
oneness of God and provides Sadat with a legitimate argument that
effectively appeals to logos and is hard to contradict. As such, this
allows Sadat to ironically use this oneness of God to undermine the
ongoing conflict and further the possibility of peace. Sadat promotes
a sense of responsibility, and creates an urgency for political action
through the use of pathos as he emphasizes the actual horror both
their nations are suffering from and questions Why should we
bequeath to the coming generations the plight of bloodshed, death,
orphans, widowhood, family disintegration and the wailing of
victims? The effective imagery of war created by Sadat alludes to a
need for ceasefire whilst his use of anacoenosis evokes a sense of
guilt and alludes to the fact that the delegates in the Knesset are
one of the causes of inherent tensions between the actual and the
possible as they hold the capability to end the reign of terror. Thus,
in a tone of sincerity and affirmation, Sadat proposes, Why dont
wetogetherdestroy this barrier? Sadats use of the inclusive
pronoun and caesura appeals to the audiences pathos and

accentuates a need for peaceful delegations. Such a proposition

proves to be an effective and universal desire in the Middle East as
there is still an ongoing conflict within the nations. October 6 th, 2013
celebrated the 40th anniversary of the war with Israel and several
citizens responded with violence and animosity. Thus, it is
undeniable that, even today, the Middle East needs individuals like
Sadat who are willing to risk their lives in a quest to promote a
possible peace and harmony. By emphasizing the commonalities
amongst the enemies. Thus, it is clear that Sadats oration
embodies a timeless nature and reveals an underlying and
continuous tension between ending conflict and seeking peace.
Therefore, it is undeniable that speeches utilize the effectiveness of
alluding to ones ethos, pathos and logos to reinstate the existence
of tensions and barriers between realities and desire possibilities.
Both Bandler and Sadats speeches explore the universal human
desire for peace and as such, create effective orations, which
remain timeless and enduring themselves.