...if the United States vetoes the Palestinian request for statehood, we will damage our position in the Islamic world—not merely the Arab World—for untold years to come. We will become the object of retribution throughout the Muslim world, and will give new energy to the lagging efforts of al-Qaida to retaliate against us.
Considering that U.S. support for Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people was the #1 motivator for the September 11, 2001 attacks, shouldn't the possibility that a veto will motivate another such attack be part of the mainstream media discourse? This is why it's not, plus this too.
Although it may be unlikely, if a post-veto terror strike on the U.S. materializes, it's easy to predict that the mainstream media will again elide "oppression of Palestinians" from the analysis. We can look forward to another narcissistic and jingoistic bout of patriotism, revenge lust, and cheerleading for an unprovoked bombing/invasion of ________. (Fill in the blank with "despised Muslim country," Mad Libs style... Iran, in all likelihood.)
Remember when Bush administration officials lied and claimed they had no way of knowing that Al Qaeda could strike in such a way (when in fact, they'd received precisely such warnings)? If the Obama administration knowingly endangers American civilians by blocking the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to statehood and UN membership, they'll have no defense that they "weren't warned" that this decision could motivate a violent reaction.
I'm not arguing that the U.S. should bow to a terrorist threat. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to statehood regardless of such threats. But I do think the government and the media should be honest about what motivates these violent attacks, and they aren't.
History could be about to repeat itself. The veto may go down in the books as the worst U.S. diplomatic decision ever.