Every one sounds interesting!!
I haven't visited but do know someone who lived there doing a project for 6 months. The List undoubtedly needs a "full set" of botanical niches but the problem is how small and specialised should they be. Like the Granitic Seychelles it is, unusually for an isolated island, of Continental origin. Its flora (and some of its birds and bats) are endemic and "Endemism" is a key UNESCO natural criterion. A problem with our "50 missed list" is that we are going to be looking for "wow factor" sites and a few prickly shrubs don't exactly provide this! We need to include some of the most important "missed" natural sites however and I would support this one. It may not matter as it could be inscribed this summer anyway!
I had to do a double take on this one - first of all "surely not" then "Why not"? Well as regards endemic species it is pretty well, as its name suggests, "dead" (a few algae etc). The ecology of the desert lands around it is pretty well represented already. Geologically it is of interest and, I understand not totally explained by geologists. On the whole however I wonder whether some of the African rift lakes are not mor significant naturally?
I don't know enough to comment
Well it is certainly going to score highly on biodiversity. I can't quite get myself to put it among the top 50 yet however!
I had been thinking of this one myself (I went there back in 1964 when it was "part" of Jordan). There are a few sites considered very significant in Archaeological terms from around the Neolithic period which haven't made there way onto the list. Those which have seem to be a bit peripheral - eg Chirochoitia in Cyprus and Ban Chiang in Thailand. Why isn't Çatalhöyük with its indications of the earliest agriculturalists on? And certainly Jericho too. I concede that I may be giving too much weight to achieving a full representation of the world's seminal Archaeological sites but I would support Jericho and may yet propose Çatalhöyük!!