Is there any particular "Reason" (whether rational/logical or not) why the Triple Arch Gate should be more likely to incur this political opposition from Arab States than other Israeli sites which have managed to get inscribed in recent years (Incense Route - 05, Biblical Tells - 05 and Bahai Holy Places - 08)?
And do we know what words/explanations were/have been used? I note that within the draft decision paper http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001881/188131e.pdf
the recommendation has been hidden away in an appendix which, as far as I am aware we don't have access to in the version obtained by Durian - WHC-10/34.COM/8B.Add
The ICOMOS review seems perfectly positive "ICOMOS considers that the changes made since the property was first nominated for the World Heritage List in 2005, and since the 2008 evaluation, have been positive, particularly with regard to the enlargement of the buffer zone and the marked improvements in property conservation work and in the monitoring of the property.
Recommendations with respect to inscription
ICOMOS recommends that the Triple-arch Gate at Dan, Israel, should be inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii).
And also reports very candidly how Israel had satisfactorily supplied the information requested at the 32nd and 33rd WHCs! I see also that it was withdrawn before the 30th session in 2005 - when of course Israel got 2 other inscriptions.