ubiquitin:
yes because inciting and encouraging attacks is wrong
If the only one who are responsible for an attack are those who actually perpetrate it (which is what I believe you said earlier), no body else can be at all responsible. Why does the ethical nature of an action change this black and white equation?
when the shooting of “innocent” palestinian stabbers is used to incite terrorism, does that make the police responsible?
No. Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified self-defense, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.
(However, the truth is that I disagree with your premise; I don’t believe that the shooting of the terrorists is a contributing factor in the current round of terrorism. Sure, Abbas and the UN might give angry speeches about it, but I don’t think this issue is what is driving the average Palestinian rioter or terrorist.)
However, one who acts without that level of justification (such as ascending HHB) would indeed be responsible.
But I think all this debate the issue of who is responsible for what, and to what extent (which may come down to a question of semantics), misses the larger question:
Putting aside the halachic prohibition, do you think that it is a good idea for Jews to ascend HHB? Should these actions be encouraged or discouraged?