I didn’t understand how this has nothing to do with the opinion of the majority. The majority is being dragged along by this minority, and in practice pays part of the price for this small group.
And secondly, to say that if the government approved the decision of that tiny handful, then that is what the public decided, seems a bit disingenuous to me. If you asked the public, it would oppose it. The fact that the government approved something like this could come out of some game of interests (he’ll vote for him on this and he’ll support advancing some law like that). That’s like saying that the public decided (at least until before the war) that the Haredim should not be drafted, or that the public opposes core curriculum studies in Haredi institutions, and the proof that the public decided this is that the government adopted the policy of the Haredi parties on these issues—even though it’s clear that isn’t true.
And here it’s not just a matter of allocating resources, as though they built another community center that requires public funds. This is a decision that affects things drastically, indirectly and even directly, to the point that that same majority among the people may end up (they or their children) in reserve duty or regular service and have to hold a line there and do local defense there—even though that majority does not agree with it.

First, indeed, if someone believes in something, the blame is not on him but on whoever enables him. The same goes for the Haredim. You can make claims against him for believing it, but if that really is his belief, then there is no question regarding him.
Second, the Haredim are not acting for the benefit of the public as a whole, but for their own sectoral and economic interest, at the public’s expense. The settlers believe they are acting for the benefit of the public.

Thanks for the response, a few things:
1. My complaint is not against the settler for going and setting up an outpost; a person is free to act according to the dictates of his conscience. It is rather about the fact that he knew that by doing so he was dragging along the majority, who are not interested in it and will pay prices for it—and he did it anyway. And I don’t see much point in blaming the government that allowed it; unfortunately, especially at the present time, there really isn’t much to expect from such a body. And therefore my criticism is directed at those who knew how to exploit the government’s weakness for this purpose.
2. The phrase ‘acting for the benefit of the public as a whole’ is so fluid that it’s hard for it to serve as any measure of anything. The Haredi person will come and say that he is the one acting for the benefit of the Jewish people by learning Torah, and that it is Torah that protects and defends us, and that Torah is what preserved the Jewish people through two thousand years of exile, as opposed to the secular person who threatens our very sitting here by not observing Torah and commandments (along with various other slogans that keep getting repeated). So I don’t see how agendas can justify something. At best, if the settler claimed that he was establishing the outpost not out of the commandment of settling the land and faith in the Greater Land of Israel, but out of a purely security need—even then it would be hard to justify an extreme opinion and drag an entire state after it. But usually that is not the case; they act, as I said, for principles such as ‘the Greater Land of Israel’ and redemption of the land (with very impressive self-sacrifice). Sometimes there is also an aspect of security need there, but it is not at the top of the priority list.

I don’t know whether the discussion has run its course; in any case, that is my view.

It has indeed run its course. In my opinion the difference is self-evident, but everything has already been written.