Likud's Dan Illouz talks defying Netanyahu, haredi draft, and post-war Israel - interview

I first met Dan Illouz over a decade ago. Like me, he was a young, private citizen living in the Anglo-friendly Jerusalem neighborhood of Old Katamon.

I got to know the Montreal-born Illouz – nicely dressed and unassuming – over Shabbat lunches and via his locally famous post-Passover Mimouna parties, celebrating his Moroccan roots with homemade mufleta. I then enjoyed seeing his name pop up in the pages of this paper as he rose through the Jerusalem city government, serving from 2018 to 2021.

That’s a very good question. I was always Zionistic. I was born and raised in the Montreal, Canada, Jewish community. I was raised by my mother, who actually passed away a month and a half ago; she raised me as a strong Zionist. My dad was also a Zionist, but my mom was the one who pushed us.

Yet I never came to Israel until age 17. The first time I visited, I decided I wanted Israel to be the place I lived. At 23, after studying at McGill Law School, I decided to leave everything I had, the opportunities around the world... McGill is one of the world’s top law schools, and I really had a ton of opportunities. But instead of going to New York, Paris, London, or staying in Montreal, I came to Jerusalem to live our nation’s dream and return to the homeland.

I think she was.

Of course. Israeli society is intense, demanding, and uncompromising – and that is precisely its strength. Israel does not reward passivity. It forces you to sharpen your convictions, defend your ideas, and take responsibility. The learning curve is real, but it is also a process of becoming more Israeli in the deepest sense – more direct, more resilient, more serious about history and consequences.

Well, around age 17, my mom gave me this T-shirt that said on the back, “Worn by Prime Minister Illouz.” Don’t tell Netanyahu I have that T-shirt [smiles]... I’m not actually competing for the title.

The idea of public service and leadership was always very present in my life, but I wasn’t sure if I would go the political route or would do diplomacy – be a civil servant. I knew I wanted to be a public servant, but I didn’t know how – so I became a member of the Jerusalem City Council. That was my first job as an elected official. Then I realized this was a place where I was comfortable and liked working.

But I don’t always like my job. It’s a very tough job.

Exactly. But it’s full of meaning, and that’s what I like about it... even though it’s tough on the family, I have two small kids and a wife at home. But it’s very meaningful, and I feel I’m making a very strong contribution to the State of Israel.

Serving in the Knesset is not symbolic; it is a responsibility toward Jewish history and Jewish survival. Renouncing my Canadian citizenship was not a rejection of my past; it was a conscious act of commitment to Israel’s future. The Knesset is difficult, chaotic, and imperfect – but it is where decisions are made that shape generations. I approach that role with seriousness, discipline, and a long historical view.

I don’t see my Anglo background as something that makes me “different,” I see it as part of the Zionist story itself.

In the Knesset, what ultimately matters is not where you came from, but whether you are rooted here – intellectually, morally, and nationally. I am.

In Israel, real influence runs through parties. Party membership is not symbolic – it is where agendas are shaped, candidates are selected, and leadership is built. Anglo Israelis who want impact must understand that engagement inside parties is far more effective than advocacy from the outside.

Those who made aliyah have already demonstrated something rare – ideological commitment strong enough to leave comfort behind. That experience gives Anglos the moral authority and strategic perspective that Israel needs. But influence comes only when that commitment is translated into sustained political involvement.

Israel rewards seriousness, loyalty, and long-term investment – not commentary from the sidelines.

I moved to Israel way before I was in politics. I believe in the Likud’s ideology. I’m a conservative when it comes to political ideology.

US president Ronald Reagan used to describe the conservative movement as a three-legged stool. There’s foreign policy, there’s conservative social policy – which is a bit different in Israel, we don’t really deal with abortions [or similar] with the Jewish identity of the State of Israel; this is the state of the Jewish people. And then the third leg, economics. I believe in all three of those legs.

Would I actually join the Likud today? This is really my ideology, and the party represents this ideology [with the addition of various sociological components]. As a Moroccan Jew, I strongly identify with some of what the Moroccan and Mizrahi communities have gone through over the generations since the creation of the state. This is where I find my place, both sociologically and ideologically, within the Likud, and since then I’ve been active in the party.

It was, again, very meaningful. Let’s say, I knew my whole life that at the end of the day, what I wanted was to be in a place of influence. I would often tell my friends, “I don’t just want to live in the generation that’s writing the Tanach’s next chapter” – which is what I think our generation is doing – “I want to be part of those who write it.”

Then Oct. 7 happened. I thought, oh no, be careful what you wish for, because it really [felt] biblical. It was a very, very tough time, and to be in that time, in the place I was... You felt the weight of Jewish history and responsibility on your back... even if you’re only one of the Knesset’s 120 members.

Since then, [I have spearheaded] a lot of accomplishments that I have to say are historical, which I brought [about] through my legislative agenda, and also thanks to stances I’ve taken that no one else has taken. I think my voice, which is kind of unique, is very important.

Therefore, on one hand, I feel even more weight of responsibility, but it’s easier to carry because I feel the importance of carrying it.

About the legislative agenda, there are things that the Israeli Right has wanted to pass for decades – whether it’s the law to close down UNWRA, making it illegal to open consulates in Jerusalem that serve the Palestinian Authority, or recognizing Israel sovereignty in Jerusalem and Jerusalem as our eternal capital... [saying] on the Knesset plenum that the Knesset supports sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Those are three things that are really historical. And as a freshman MK, to pass these, they’re really big accomplishments. I’m very proud of them.

Most people know my stances have to do with the haredi draft law. But there’s a lot that’s [economy-related]. I’m a free-market person. There aren’t a lot of free-market voices in Israel, yet I think it’s essential for the Israeli economy to grow and be dynamic.

The prime minister is one, by the way; the prime minister is a free marketer. But he obviously has a lot of things to deal with, so he doesn’t always put the focus on that.

[Circling back] to the haredi draft, from within the coalition, having such a strong and clear voice – on the one hand, we need a draft law because we need those soldiers in the army. But on the other hand, making sure this law is a real law and not full of holes that end up not accomplishing the law’s stated goal. That’s something I’ve been very vocal on, and there aren’t many people in the coalition who have.

It’s easy in the opposition to be vocal on that, but it’s also almost useless, because the opposition always opposes what the government does...

And [there’s] the coalition voice – and also based on the values of the Likud, which is my anchor. It’s my anchor in representing the people – the Likud voters sending their kids to the army and serving in the reserves. And it’s been very, very effective. I’ve been able to not only stop some of the bad legislation on the issue, but also ensure that whatever legislation does pass will be better than what was expected. I hope that in the end, there’s legislation I’m happy to vote for. We’re still not there, though.

And right now, the discussions within the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee are over a text that I do not fully endorse. There are a lot of problems with it. I’m working hard in order for it to become good enough for me to confidently say I can support this text, but we’re not there yet.

I look like a rebel, right? [Grins.]

There have been a lot of reactions within Likud. When I go out into the field and meet Likud voters, they tell me, “You’re the only person actually expressing our concerns, expressing our voice. They speak to me about how much their children have served; how much they [too] have served. They tell us it’s not normal for the haredim not to serve together with them.

Do you know how many orphans this [war has] made? [We recently heard about] 30 orphans from one event, where four people were killed.

Now, we don’t want any soldier to get killed. But if they weren’t reserve soldiers, they would have been regular soldiers at the age of service [who presumably would not have families yet]. That would be a tragedy still. But at least 30 people wouldn’t be orphans today in Israel. Because the way of life is that those between ages 18 and 21 should be the ones serving, and the reserves should just be backup. But right now, it’s not a possibility. So you asked about Likud – there’s a lot of support in the field.

There is pressure within the coalition about another part of Likud membership that’s worried because they believe in the “Likud way”; that we might break the alliance with the haredim and [move closer to] the opposition, which has, up until today, boycotted the Likud. [This would] leave us without any way of advancing our agenda, so they’re worried in a very legitimate way. I don’t dismiss their concerns. But I think when you look at the need for soldiers, and the existential threats Israel is facing, and the fact that you can’t beat these threats without soldiers – you can’t win wars without soldiers.

We need to be very clear on this issue and tell our coalition partners, if you want to be with us in the coalition, you need to be willing to bring [about] historical change. It doesn’t mean this historical change will come in one day. It doesn’t mean it will be 100% of what I want. I understand coalition is also compromise. But it cannot be just bringing a law that doesn’t achieve the goal at all. And that’s what I’m fighting for.

We’ve had conversations about this issue all along the way. I want to [point out that] the media likes to speak about things in a much more dramatic tone than what they [really] are. It’s been reported that I’ve been yelled at by Netanyahu. I haven’t been yelled at by Netanyahu. It didn’t happen. I’m sorry to disappoint.

I do want to say there were some very tough discussions. I will say that Netanyahu, in every discussion, has told me he wants to bring [about] historical change. I believe the current bill, which is on the Knesset floor, doesn’t bring this historical change. I think I can prove that very clearly, and that it can convince Netanyahu to demand these historical changes.

I’m not against Netanyahu; I’m a Netanyahu supporter. Some would even say I’m a fan. I think he’s a historical leader [whom] the Jewish people have the merit to have in this generation. Every great leader, though, it isn’t always 100% right on every issue.

And part of my job as an MK is to oversee the government’s work, to ensure the legislation coming out of the Knesset is the right legislation. So sometimes I have to say to Netanyahu, with all of the respect and appreciation I have for him, “On this issue, I disagree.” Even sometimes saying, “It’s a red line for me and doesn’t pass coalition discipline.”

By the way, I learned that from Netanyahu. He sometimes has said to a prime minister [when he wasn’t in that role] that some issues were too important for him to just vote with the party – and he voted otherwise.

I’m taking his example. I hope he’s proud that I’m taking his example.

I don’t think we have lost our values. I do think that over the years, unfortunately, there have been trends where Likud MKs have been less intent on fighting for those values. They’re still our values but because of coalition politics, we’ve been willing to compromise a lot on our values to ensure the coalition stays in power.

One thing I learned on Oct. 7 – I believe that if right-wing values had been applied over the decades, 100% the way they should have been applied, we wouldn’t have gotten to Oct. 7. Whether it’s Oslo, the disengagement, the prisoner swap for Gilad Schalit – some of those under Likud governments. If we had some very strong right-wing ideals, I think Oct. 7 wouldn’t have happened. So one thing I’ve learned is you need to stand strong on your ideals.

Don’t let go of them because of pressure.

And that includes international pressure. That includes pressure from the media, which is sometimes more left-leaning (not talking about The Jerusalem Post); sometimes from the legal adviser and also from coalition partners. So we have to know how to say to our coalition partners, “We are the big party in this coalition – if you want to join.”

Yes, we will come to some compromises, but we won’t let go of our values. And I think that in the Likud, some have been too willing to let go of that. They’ve done it, again, for reasons I understand. We want to allow Netanyahu to deal with the big picture, whether it’s the Abraham Accords or the US relationship. But I think we’ve compromised too much.

I’m going to stand strong for our values, and that’s the voice I’m trying to bring to the Knesset. I think Likud members appreciate this voice.

This is very hard to say. I’m sorry I’m not a crystal ball. And I’m not a political commentator. I’m a politician. I can tell you what I hope. I hope the Right will win the next election. But I also hope that Likud will be in a position to build a coalition where no one has the ability to make the coalition fall on their own. And this will stop many smaller parties from having a lot of power [regarding] what the coalition does.

But this is possible only if one thing happens: If the boycott of Netanyahu by the opposition stops. It gives a ton of power to smaller parties. If we had some other Zionist parties joining the coalition and not just boycotting Netanyahu, it would remove the ability of smaller parties to threaten to make the government fall. It would make their power more proportional to what they actually are – rather than the disproportionate power they’ve had over the last few decades.

Israel is a clear outlier among democracies. It concentrates extraordinary power in the hands of unelected officials – without a constitution, without a second legislative chamber, and without effective checks on judicial authority. That reality did not emerge by accident, and it cannot be ignored if we care about democratic legitimacy.

Judicial reform is not about weakening democracy – it is about restoring balance and responsibility. In a sovereign Jewish state, fundamental decisions about national life must ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the public. A system in which major policy questions are decided by actors who face no public scrutiny undermines trust and erodes democratic resilience.

Reform is therefore not radical – it is corrective, necessary, and long overdue.

The future of Jews in the West depends on whether Jews understand the moment we are living in. Antisemitism today is not an accident; it is a symptom of civilizational weakness and moral confusion. Jews have flourished in the West when societies were confident and stable; when those foundations erode, Jews are often the first to feel it.

A bright future is possible – but only if Jewish communities stop outsourcing their security and identity to others, and instead invest in strength, education, and an unbreakable connection to Israel.

Comfort is not the same as security, and security is not the same as permanence. Montreal still has a strong Jewish community, but something fundamental has changed in the West. Jews are increasingly asked to justify their existence, their values, and their connection to Israel. History teaches us that when that question appears, it is not a temporary phase. Zionism exists precisely because Jews learned to take such signals seriously.

Aliyah is not an escape – it is a statement. It means choosing to live Jewish history from the inside rather than observing it from the outside. Israel is the only place where Jews do not ask permission to defend themselves, govern themselves, or shape their future.

Aliyah is demanding, but it is also profoundly liberating. For Jews who believe in responsibility, not just belonging, aliyah is a natural continuation of Jewish history.

My exchange with Owens highlights a critical civilizational struggle. Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are not merely commentators; they are dangerous intellectual vandals using massive platforms to poison the well of truth and erode the West’s moral core. By rewriting the Holocaust as a “logistical error” and labeling the Star of David “demonic,” they weaponize the tools of democracy to destroy the very values that sustain it.

Make no mistake: They represent a profound threat to the bond between Jerusalem and Washington. Yet, history has a way of silencing those who peddle hate for clicks.

We are the people of eternity who have outlasted the greatest empires in history; we will certainly outlast those who turn lies into a business model. They are a dangerous phase; we are an eternal reality.

Owen’s unhinged response, claiming that a democratic debate is a “plot” for murder, is a descent into pure paranoia and baseless conspiracy. My words were a sharp, principled, and intellectual critique. No reasonable person could ever interpret them as a call to violence.

It is clear that Owens simply cannot handle rigorous criticism. Instead of engaging with facts, she resorts to theatrical victimhood to silence those who expose her, adopting the very “cancel culture” tactics she claims to fight.

Yes. Israel is emerging from this war stronger, clearer, and more united about who we are and what we stand for.

Victory has not only restored deterrence; it has reopened horizons. The strength Israel demonstrated creates unprecedented opportunities for security, regional realignment, economic growth, and genuine peace based on realism rather than illusion.

Israel is no longer an isolated outpost on the edge of the world. It is becoming a strategic, economic, and technological center – a country that others increasingly look to rather than lecture.

This is a moment of opportunity, not exhaustion. Jewish history teaches us that moments like this are rare – and that they must be seized with confidence and vision.

It’s very difficult, to be honest. My big luck is that I live in Jerusalem and I work in Jerusalem. I get to [visit] my friends who live in the Golan and [am still able] commute to work every day in Jerusalem, so I can’t complain much.

But with a three-week-old and a one-and-a-half-year-old at home, it’s very tough on the family. My wife is absolutely amazing. She gives me a lot of support, but being a politician is difficult for many different reasons; work-life balance is one of them. Always being under a microscope is another. Having to be in these fights all the time is something else. It’s not easy.

I have to say, maybe some people will be surprised, but I don’t love the ‘politics’ of being a politician – the noise, cynicism, endless friction. I enjoy other things much more.

However, I am deeply passionate about the mission, and I find so much meaning in it.

So that’s why I want to keep doing it. I want to keep doing it.