A high-stakes historical and political controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom after the Palestinian ambassador to the UK submitted an official formal complaint to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office over the deletion of the term “Palestine” from archaeological exhibits at the British Museum.
The alteration of exhibit labels took place in February, when museum leadership replaced references to “Palestine” in displays focused on ancient Egypt and the Phoenician civilization with the term “Canaan.” Officials justified the change by arguing that “Palestine” was not a historically meaningful geographical descriptor for the specific time periods covered in the exhibits. The revised labels now refer to the relevant region as Canaan and reclassify the Hyksos people, previously described as being of “Palestinian descent,” as of “Canaanite descent.”
Investigative reporting from The Telegraph has traced the decision back to pressure from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a controversial pro-Israel advocacy group. In a formal letter sent to British Museum director Nicholas Cullinan, UKLFI contended that labeling the eastern Mediterranean coast as Palestine in exhibits covering 1700–1500 BC amounted to erasing the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and incorrectly framed the ancestral origins of the Jewish people as tied to Palestine. The organization’s objections specifically targeted the wording of those two exhibit labels, leading directly to the revision.
Critics of the change note that historical evidence contradicts the museum’s claim that the term Palestine is anachronistic for ancient contexts. One of the earliest surviving references to the region dates back to the 12th century BC, inscribed on the Great Harris Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian document that refers to the area as “Peleset”—a linguistic precursor to the name Palestine that covers territory including modern-day Gaza and the Israeli city of Ashdod. Despite the existence of these well-documented ancient sources, museum leadership moved forward with the label changes.
In an interview with The Guardian, Palestinian ambassador Husam Zomlot emphasized the gravity of the dispute, framing the erasure of Palestine from historical exhibits as an existential issue for the Palestinian people. This objection carries particular weight: the United Kingdom formally recognized Palestine as a sovereign state just months before the label changes were made. “I sent a letter to the minister in charge at the Foreign Office, and we are still waiting for a response,” Zomlot said Wednesday. “This is not only a political issue, not only a legal issue, not even just a historical dispute. This is an existential matter. Erasing our past is erasing our present.”
The British Museum has pushed back against claims that the change was a direct response to UKLFI pressure. In a statement to Middle East Eye in February, a museum spokesperson argued that the term Palestine, while one of the oldest documented names for the eastern Mediterranean’s southern Levant region, is only appropriate for historical contexts dating to the later second millennium BC. The spokesperson added that the institution uses UN-endorsed terminology for modern maps of the region, referencing Gaza, the West Bank, Israel and Jordan, and uses the identifier “Palestinian” for cultural and ethnographic contexts when appropriate. Even so, the spokesperson acknowledged that the term was changed because it is no longer considered politically neutral in contemporary discourse—an admission that has fueled further criticism.
Palestinian advocacy groups have decried the museum’s decision as blatant hypocrisy. Energy Embargo for Palestine, a grassroots campaign organization, pointed out that the British Museum positions itself as a neutral guardian of global cultural heritage, claiming to preserve and communicate history objectively. “And yet after looting Palestinian artefacts from across the Middle East, it is now unashamedly preparing itself to rewrite history, to erase Palestine, and its millions of people, out of the history books,” the group said in a formal statement.
While the British Museum has repeatedly claimed it did not entirely remove the term Palestine from all its exhibits, photographic evidence contradicts this assertion. Documents obtained via a Freedom of Information request by independent website Unredacted also show museum staff cited incoming audience emails and social media posts from high-profile historians as additional justification for the terminology change.
This incident is not an isolated case: the British Museum is just the latest in a growing list of UK public institutions targeted by UKLFI over content related to Palestine. Earlier in February, UKLFI pressure prompted Encyclopaedia Britannica to amend multiple entries in its children’s platform Britannica Kids, removing the term Palestine from regional maps. A year prior, London’s Chelsea and Westminster Hospital removed a children’s artwork created by students in Gaza. UKLFI director Caroline Turner initially claimed the removal came in response to patient complaints, but a subsequent Freedom of Information request forced the hospital to admit that the only complaint received had been submitted by UKLFI itself.