Because it can give nothing. It's a totally one-sided alliance.
Actually, Zionism rules the day. Technically, they're not a theocracy, but they did want that land due to religious reasons. They can deny it all they like, but THAT PARTICULAR LAND was a demand of the Zionists.
The question is, why would anyone have an alliance with Israel, since Israel couldn't send troops to help if we were invaded. Israel is surrounded by enemies and couldn't risk sending troops for fear of attack. Again, it's a totally one-sided alliance.
As for my take on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, let's look at the creation of the state of Israel. On the following link you'll see a brief overview of the origin of the state of Israel and also the fact that Arabs there were not happy with the United Nation's partition plan and voted to reject it.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_role.php
Also, if you'll note the populations at the time, the Arabs were a clear majority. The majority isn't always right, but common sense will tell you that challenging the majority will result in conflict whether they are right or wrong. To believe that the Jews would have a peaceful welcome in Palestine was wishful thinking on the part of the U.N. This does not justify violent actions on the part of the Arabs, but again, the laws of cause and effect cannot be ignored. The Arabs are unequivocally wrong to pursue violence as a means of retaliation, but it is clear that their rights were violated first.
In the late 40's, the Palestinian people were overruled and their wishes were ignored by the U.N. To put oneself in their shoes, did the citizens in Palestine vote to elect any of the U.N. leaders who made this decision? Do you believe that a group such as the U.N. or any other political group has the right to make decisions that affect the lives of people if these same people are not allowed to vote them into (or out of) representative positions? Do you believe this is a fair way to decide issues? And if so, would you allow another political body which you or no one else in the U.S. voted for to come in and forcibly relocate you or force you to share land when it was against your desire to do so? I think a lot of people wouldn't like this. I know I wouldn't. I would feel like my rights had been violated.
The Palestinians warned the world that they would resist with violence if the U.N. plan was enacted, and that is exactly what they did. Were they morally wrong in choosing to initiate violence? Absolutely. However, were the Jewish people, more specifically the Zionists, wrong to pursue the creation of a state in an area of people who did not desire the presence of such a state, who voted against it, and who had it forced upon them by a political body they did not elect? I definitely think so, and this becomes the cause. For the Zionists to pursue such a plan and enter an area like this, surrounded by the followers of a religion of violence like Islam, just to in essence "reclaim" land that was allegedly granted to them by God is either incredibly arrogant or incredibly short-sighted.
The real reason the Arabs resisted was not because of hatred of the Jews, but because they saw the encroachment as a repeat of the creation of the Crusader states. Castles built by Europeans in the holy land still stand as daily reminders of the holocaust that demolished an early, prosperous Islamic civilization. Some cultures have very long memories (unlike the short attention span of Americans). Two of the three main divisions of the PLO are named after battles fought during the Crusades. What the Jewish people have really done is blunder into a thousand year war between the Christian West and the Islamic world, and now the Muslims are focused on them.
