They commented Sharm al-Sheikh, not Ras el-Hekma, was in Sinai.
They commented that Ras el-Hekma is a more defensible location than Sharm al-Sheikh in general terms... which you seem to agree with based on your comment about needing to invade Northern Egypt to get to aras el-Hakem.
Is that Google AI search hallucinations? MB does not have anything to do with Sinai. There were insurgency fueled by several factors (some of them related to your normal normal Military Dictatorship)
> If you've looked at a map, it's also located in Sinai
I don't think you looked yourself in the map. It is located on the other side of Egypt. To the west of Alexandria.
> Moving resort tourism to much more defensible Ras al-Hekma works
More defensible? You really need to cross almost all of northern Egypt (practically invading it) to reach Ras- Elhekma from Sinai.
> And Egypt (with UAE, Saudi, and some Indian capital) has been building out alternatives like Siwa
I am not sure if by building out alternative you mean developing tourism destination because Siwa as a place where people live and flourish existed and was part of Egypt for thousands of years.