I still don't really understand all this.  Why can't we just say that Gaza is very dense with several urban areas that would be the site of fighting.  And we can explain why that was a great concern before the conflict began.  Why do we have to include the 6th part?  Does it say anything that we can't say another way?  What does it bring to the party?  In my mind the problem is that Gaza's population is urban, it is defended by urban guerillas and that an Israeli operation required urban warfare, especially air to surface and artillery attacks which would require heavy civilian casualties.  The 6th part doesn't add anything unique and is potentially misleading.  Beyond that a number of editors are opposed to it.  So why should we keep it? 

 Can we not compromise and still raise the same points but in a way that everyone can live with?  It seems that everyone automatically entrenches their positions without considering ways to compromise.