Israel/Palestine/Judea/Caanan aside, has there ever been another country occupied so many times? Greeks, Romans (and then Byzantines), Moors, Ottoman Turks, British, even the Israelis had a go during the Suez Crisis.
What is the appeal of Egypt anyway? I know it's in a part of the world where East meets West, but is that really why it's so well fought over?
Since the late 19th century it has been important for the Suez Canal. I don't know that it's been occupied much more than, say, Libya, Anatolia or Iraq, but this would invite a complex question regarding the meaning of "occupied."
Certainly "occupied" in the 20th century refers to something very different than the kind of imperial domination by conquest or tribute of classical Islam, and both are in turn different from the imperialist domination of France and Britain. Each of the conquerors you mentioned came in very different ways.
I'd say that with areas of the world which are as old as Egypt it's obvious why they have been ruled by so many different states/empires/kingdoms.
Dear friends, please notice that words like "Egypt" and "Greece" are historically flexible.
Greece sometimes means Macedonia, but more properly refers to Attica and the Peloponnese. Then again, Ionia, which is in modern day Turkey, is undoubtedly Greek.
Rameses II is of course an Egyptian Pharoah. But he had nothing in common with the Egyptian Fatamids.
In fact Egypt and Greece occasionally refer equally to the same thing: Alexandria, Hellenic Egypt, Minoan civilization.
If one is to talk on such a large scale, one must be careful about terms.
>a country occupied so many times
Pretty much the entire middle east from Egypt to Iraq changed hands as many times between Romans, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Mongolians and European imperial powers. And that's not even counting anything before Alexander the Great since my knowledge of that period is more iffy.
Don't be childish, and please don't pretend like you're qualified to speak in such broad historic terms. I don't care to debate the mangled point you're making (words like native are constantly disrupted in history's long motions of conquest, settlement, intermixing, assimilation, immigration etc.)
Just try to have an educated discussion. If you can't speak in such broad terms (I can't and I don't think anyone can) then make your claims more specific.
Talk about Ottoman Egypt vs. Ottoman Greece, something like that. It would be more interesting, more fruitful. And don't reflexively argue anything and interpret everything as if it were an argument against you. This is how stupid 4chan debates start.