I was reading a book and found this sentence which I am a bit unable to get the meaning, as it seems to be long, I highly appreciate your help:
During the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, then candidate Mitt Romney gave an interview after what has become obligatory for a U.S. candidate seeking to become president – a trip to Israel. “The Israelis have outpaced the Palestinians economically because culture makes the difference,” remarked Romney. Seemingly oblivious to the decades long abuse the Palestinians have suffered under Israeli military occupation and oppression.
I am looking for this part : During the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, then candidate Mitt Romney gave an interview after what has become obligatory for a U.S. candidate seeking to become president – a trip to Israel
I cannot find any link between the first part, and then to “a trip to israel”.
Who are going to Israel or what is the thing with Israel?
During the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, then candidate Mitt Romney gave an interview after a trip to Israel, which has become obligatory for a U.S. candidate seeking to become president.
“…THEN candidate Mitt Romney…” = the candidate AT THE TIME of the 2012 Republican Presidential primary was Mitt Romney.
“…Mitt Romney gave an interview AFTER……- a trip to Israel.” = He took a trip to Israel and afterwards gave an interview.
“…what has become obligatory for a U.S. candidate seeking to become president – a trip to Israel.” = The trip to Israel is what has become almost compulsory or extremely important for U.S. Republican candidates to take - so they can be photographed/get media attention etc and gain Jewish votes and substantial donations for their campaigns.
“During the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, then candidate Mitt Romney gave an interview after what has become obligatory for a U.S. candidate seeking to become president – a trip to Israel.”
It is clear to a native English speaker. There’s no missing information in this sentence, except the reader isn’t told why it’s “obligatory” for candidates to take a trip to Israel.
We are told that Mitt Romney (as a US presidential candidate) took a trip to Israel, and then he gave an interview. We are told this trip to Israel is considered extremely necessary – to the point where it’s considered as an obligation. That is, the trip to Israel is what has become obligatory for all presidential candidates.
I added the information that candidates (or the political party) believe they require American Jewish votes and potentially huge funding from the Jewish community in America and Israel – so they can substantially increase their funding, votes and chances of being selected. In order to do so, they like to gain media attention and take strategic photos etc. over in Israel.
I think Ozemite nailed it, Mat. You’re just getting hung up on the word “then,” which in this case is not a transitional word, but rather a part of the expression “then candidate” which means “candidate at that time.”
During the 2012 U.S. primary election season, Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate at that time, gave an interview following a trip to Israel: something which has become obligatory for American presidential candidates.
Visiting Israel (and then giving an interview afterwards) has become something of an obligation for American presidential candidates.
Hi Sir Ozemite
I am continuing my same material reading, and I have found another seemingly ambiguous one, if you can clarify it for me I would be very thankful
There’s no evidence to prove Muslims are radicalized into becoming terrorists by their faith, and, in fact, there’s nothing more than a casual link between extremist Salafism and violent extremism.
The sentence is/: there is nothing more than a casual link,
Does this mean that some people propose there is a link, however, it is casual and unsupported by evidence, or casual means there is no.
Notice that the phrase began with “…and, IN FACT, there’s nothing more than a casual link between…” This ‘in fact’ implies a link does exist.
But even if the sentence did not have the words “in fact”, we still know a link exists, because it’s stated “there’s…a casual link” = THERE IS a casual link.
A casual link = a very small, weak or slight link exists.
“There is nothing more than…” Here, the ‘nothing’ does not mean it doesn’t exist. Rather, ‘nothing more than’ = means the link is JUST weak or AT THE MOST weak (based on what is currently/presently known).
“There’s no evidence” = there’s not enough evidence to prove it.
No evidence does not mean that it is disproved yet, though. (disproved = proved to be wrong). It’s possible there might be enough or stronger evidence found in the future to prove that the link is more than casual.
By the way, your English is excellent! There is no need to address anyone here or elsewhere on the web as “Sir” or “Madam/Mrs”, etc. We might just use it for our boss, or for very elderly people over 80, for example. For most English speakers, “Sir” etc is old-fashioned these days.
Edit: A possible exception would be Americans, I guess. They seem to be forever addressing people, even their parents, as sir/ma’am, if I believe American TV
