Demonstrate that they advocate aid to Israel "based on" the terrorism, and not "partially based on" the terrorism and partially based on something else, like our nat'l security
Look, you wanted a definition that you could refer to without having to ping me for my divination, and I'm providing you with one. You'll then be able to see from there, as you read their opinions, whether it describes them or not, and I suspect you will see that it does in quite a number of cases.
But all that aside, I see you're still having trouble with the definition. Like I said earlier, they may well say and believe that taking a certain action would in some way or another improve national security. That's not the same as going after a direct threat.
To give another example, probably the first occasion for a paleo/neo rift was the Korean War. The advocates of that war pushed what was known as the domino theory, which I'm sure you've heard of. I highly doubt that any of them thought that North Korea posed a military threat to us, or that the conquest of the South, by itself, would have put the Communist conspiracy in a materially greater position to do us harm. It was more of a "slippery slope" type of argument, whereby if we allow it in one instance... you know the drill. And the fear expressed was that as totalitarianism claims more victims, our position is going to be weaker. They may not have specifically used the phrase "make the world safe for democracy" ('cause they didn't want to sound like mushy Wilsonians), but their arguments added up to the exact same thing.
Yes, that's great. And I dutifully applied it, and came up empty (no "neocons" actually exist). You don't have to prove me wrong, if you don't want; I'm happy to leave it at that.
But all that aside, I see you're still having trouble with the definition.
Quite possible :-) Must be all my fault, can't be that the definition makes no sense, is self-contradictory, relies on subjective judgments, or is simply vacuous....
Like I said earlier, they may well say and believe that taking a certain action would in some way or another improve national security. That's not the same as going after a direct threat.
It is if they think it is. (I assume we're talking about them and their motivations, not you and your opinion of their policies.)
You might say, "but they don't think it is". To which I'd have to ask: "Who's 'they'?"
domino theory
But now you're saying that the "domino theory", and the way we fought the Cold War, was a "neocon" thing. Which implies that practically all Republicans in the last 60 years have been "neocons".
You keep bouncing between a vacuous definition of "neocon" (according to which there aren't any) and a redundant one (according to which all non-paleo conservatives qualify). Confusing.
And the fear expressed was that as totalitarianism claims more victims, our position is going to be weaker.
In other words, communism posed a direct threat to our national security, and had to be resisted. What's "neocon" about this position? It involves action against perceived threats - not "to make things better in other countries" or "based on how other governments treat their citizens" (remember these little characterizations of the "neocon"? hmm?)
One post "neocons" are all about philanthropy, the next they just long-term strategizing hawks. One post nobody's a neocon, the next post 99% of conservatives since 1941 are neocons. You're all over the map. You can see that, right?