Benny Gantz Quotes

I believe that our national security lies not just in protecting our borders, but in bridging divides.

By dedicating so much concentration to the issue of security, bilateral matters pass to a secondary level.

I used to have a little saying I used when people said, 'What are your priorities?' I'd give them a bit of government alphabet soup. I'd say 'CTCPROW: Counterterrorism, counterproliferation, rest of the world.'

We have been using foreign affairs ministries to address security issues, but this practice is outdated. It's time to assign the handling of regional security to national organizations and expert institutions.

National security, both internal and external, is a challenge.

I believe when the country feels threatened it is important that we are seen to be working together to find an appropriate structure for dealing with terrorists in our midst.

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.

We are at war, and our security as a nation depends on winning that war.

The most fundamental purpose of government is defense, not empire.

It is only natural that for any statesman at the helm of any government the question of his country's security should be a concern of the utmost importance.

The first thing I see is the obligation to serve peace.

I believe in a strong national defense. But it's my belief that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan poses a threat to national security, and we shouldn't be involved in either area.

War can be prevented only by broad-minded statesmanship - a statesmanship that understands how to enlist people's interests in a leading cause.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security.

World peace is no longer some pie-in-the-sky thing, because no single person or country is going to solve it on their own.

So long as peace is not attained by law (so argue the advocates of armaments) the military protection of a country must not be undermined, and until such is the case disarmament is impossible.

Free nations with different histories, economies and a vast amount of stubborn pride will never achieve complete agreement, even when they desire the same objectives.

I would say national security is work in progress.

Mistakes, after all, are endemic to foreign and military policy given the unpredictability of events and the difficulty of securing reliable information in a place like Iraq.

It's taken a lot of presidents to get us where we are today, a lot of deployments, a lot of wars, a lot engagements. You add them all up.

I often wonder if we could not solve the world's problems on a similar basis of harmony.

The United States contributes to peace in both by serving as a buffer between and among regional powers that, while not preparing for armed conflict, do not fully trust one another.

I think in national security, the war in Iraq is troublesome and a difficult challenge, but our troops and the military leaders we have are managing that situation, although it continues to be very risky and very dangerous.

Our country has never started a war. Our sole objective is deterrence, the strength and capability it takes to prevent war.

We have to rearrange in our minds what defense actually means. Does it mean you're going to try to protect the boundaries of a piece of land, or does it mean you're going to try to help the people on that piece of land to live a better life?