The kinds of terrorism that Israel accepts are small-scale things, like car bombs and suicide bombers on busses. This attitude is necessary because the hostile population lives right next door, or even within their borders. Its low-grade, low-tech and hard to prevent. The terrorists in Israel see themselves as foot soldiers trying to evict an occupying power.

Israelis accept terrorism because they have to, not because of some superior character.

This isn't the kind of terrorism that the US is trying to prevent. For a terrorist attack to be successful, it has to be high-profile, because terrorist activities in the US are primarily fund-raisers or propaganda events for organizations that otherwise operate closer to their homelands. This kind of big-bang events are not going to be easy to accept, or not publicize.

According to this view, an accepting attitude is not going to help the US with big-bang terrorism. If anything, it might help the terrorists.

If we really want to be more accepting of terrorism in Israeli style, we need to start having e.g. more car bombings in metropolitan areas. I'm not so sure that's really what anybody wants.

I have a hard time putting into words what I feel is wrong with your statement. I guess exceptionalism and arrogance could be the terms - there's been one terrorist attack in the US in recent history and somehow it seems that's the most important thing in the world? There's nothing to learn from people who've been dealing with it for decades (I won't endorse many Israeli policies but that's beside the point)? I'd say that you can't appreciate how continuous terrorist attacks make one feel but on the other hand the government sure has been trying its hardest to make people feel as if that really were the case.

Probably doesn't make sense but I can't let the statement stand and a downvote isn't the right thing here.

I guess you mean one successful attack? If the Detroit plane or Times Square car attacks had gone as planned, people would still be shitting bricks.