What more needs to happen?
Three years after October 7, Prof. Guy Hochman examines why right-wing supporters, especially Netanyahu supporters, do not update their positions in light of the harsh criticism they themselves voice against the government. The article uses statistical tools (Bayes' theorem) to explain how cognitive biases prevent belief updating, and cites criticism from right-wing figures such as Ofer Winter, Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben Gvir, and Hatzel regarding Netanyahu's policies.
Three years after the October 7 disaster, Prof. Guy Hochman, a behavioral economics expert from Reichman University, analyzes the public's inability, particularly among right-wing supporters, to update their political positions in light of new evidence. The article opens with an explanation of Bayes' theorem and base rate bias, showing how people tend to ignore contradictory information when their political identity is at stake. Hochman cites sharp criticism from prominent right-wing figures: Ofer Winter attacks the political echelon's hesitation but declares that "we will only recommend Netanyahu"; Bezalel Smotrich has lost confidence in the PM but calls for unity under his leadership; Itamar Ben Gvir complains about policy while declaring loyalty; and commentator Hatzel attacks the policy but clarifies he still supports Netanyahu. The central claim: if even government supporters criticize the situation as if the government is not involved, and this does not prompt reconsideration of the conclusion, then a political position has become an "unassailable fact." Hochman calls for applying Cromwell's rule—to consider the possibility that we are wrong—and not to give up the right to choose out of fear of statistics.