Britain15 February, 20263 min read
ICJP Sends Formal Letter to British Museum, Accuses It of Erasing 'Palestine' From Middle East Galleries
British Museum removed 'Palestine' from maps and panels in ancient Middle East galleries. Changes followed a complaint and pressure from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and audience feedback.
23 outlets told this the same way.
Outlets did split on UK Police Charge Teddy Young With Spying For Foreign Power, Royal Navy Member →
British Museum label changes
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has formally written to the British Museum accusing it of erasing Palestinian identity after the museum removed the word "Palestine" from maps and information panels in parts of its ancient Middle East galleries. ICJP’s letter says the removal "erases Palestinian identity and amounts to differential, discriminatory treatment," framing the edits as a political and rights issue.
“ICJP says the removal erases Palestinian identity and amounts to differential, discriminatory treatment.”
Multiple outlet reports link the changes to complaints from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). Those reports also note museum statements that the revisions aimed to improve historical accuracy or to avoid anachronism in ancient-period labels.
British Museum response
The British Museum’s public statements, as reported, emphasise historical accuracy and prior review work rather than admitting changes were made in response to the UKLFI complaint. Coverage by the Museums Association says the museum denied that the edits followed pressure and characterised the updates as part of a review started more than a year earlier. The Museums Association account added that "Palestine" remains in use elsewhere and that modern boundary maps follow UN terminology (Gaza, West Bank, Israel, Jordan).
Metro.co.uk quotes Director Nick Cullinan insisting the museum is "not removing references to Palestine" and noting there is a display about Palestine and Gaza. Other outlets similarly record the museum’s emphasis on period-appropriate labels such as "Canaan" for parts of the late second millennium BCE.
Levant display label updates
Reports specify concrete label changes in Levant-related displays: panels for the Phoenicians and ancient Egypt, a revised Hyksos description and other late second‑millennium BCE material have been altered from references to 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian descent' to 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite descent'. ABNA English and Middle East Eye note the Hyksos wording change covering c.1700–1500 BCE.
“It also changed text about the Hyksos (c.1700–1500 BCE), replacing ‘of Palestinian origin’ with ‘of Canaanite origin.’”
Roya News and Metro.co.uk report a revised Phoenician panel and broader Levant gallery updates covering c.2000–300 BC. Israel National News reports that curators agreed the term was not historically meaningful for those periods and updated the displays.
Reactions to museum edits
The changes have provoked pushback from scholars, cultural figures and campaigners across multiple countries. Middle East Eye and ICJP report activists and campaigners accusing the museum of "erasing Palestinian history and cultural identity." The National.scot notes a petition signed by more than 4,000 people demanding the label be restored.
The National.scot also quotes author William Dalrymple calling press accounts "misleading." Türkiye Today highlights criticism from cultural figures in Türkiye and wider debates about how museums frame history and identity. These reactions underline the polarized interpretations of the same edits — technical historical correction for some, cultural erasure for others.
Museum terminology debate
Coverage highlights a broader debate about period-appropriate terminology, the use of UN nomenclature for modern boundaries, and how museums navigate politically charged historical terms. Several sources note the museum uses UN terminology for modern maps (Gaza, West Bank, Israel, Jordan) and reserves 'Palestinian' as an ethnographic term where appropriate, while critics say removing the name in ancient contexts risks erasing continuity of Palestinian presence. Others (e.g., The Indian Express, Dialogue Pakistan) record UKLFI's argument that retroactive use of 'Palestine' can be anachronistic and misframe ancient Israelite origins, showing how different stakeholders invoke archaeology, nationalism and museum practice to support opposing claims.
“The change follows a complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel to museum director Nicholas Cullinan arguing that applying 'Palestine' to eras when the name did not exist is anachronistic, could imply a false continuous identity, and marginalises Jewish history.”