The British Museum quietly changed several display panels in its ancient Middle East galleries, replacing references to “Palestine” and “Palestinian descent” with “Canaan” and “Canaanite descent.” The changes came after a formal complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel advocacy group that argued the museum was applying the term “Palestine” retroactively to periods predating its historical use.
UKLFI published a statement on February 14 welcoming what it described as the museum’s responsiveness to its concerns. The group had written to museum director Nicholas Cullinan arguing that labeling the ancient southern Levant as “Palestine” in displays covering 2000–300 BC was historically inaccurate and risked “erasing the history of Israel and the Jewish people.”
The museum’s public response was inconsistent. Officials initially denied the changes were made in response to the UKLFI complaint, insisting a display review had been underway for more than a year and that the director had not seen the group’s letter until after the story broke. But a petition launched by Palestinian advocacy groups and historians — gathering more than 7,000 signatures within a day — pointed out that the museum had in fact changed the panels, and that the timing and subject matter aligned precisely with what UKLFI had requested. Middle East Eye reported critics called it “historical revisionism and cultural erasure.”
Historians are divided on the underlying question. Some support using “Canaan” for the ancient period as more precise; others argue “Palestine” has been used as a geographical descriptor since at least the 5th century BCE, and that the museum’s framing adopts a political argument under the cover of historical accuracy.
What is not in dispute is the pattern UKLFI represents. This is the same organization that pressured Encyclopaedia Britannica to alter entries on Palestine, prompted the Open University to remove a reference to the Virgin Mary being born in “ancient Palestine,” and filed complaints against cultural institutions, hospitals, and universities across the UK. The group’s UK charity wing was under Charity Commission investigation as of July 2025, following complaints about its use of strategic lawsuits to silence pro-Palestinian voices.
The Palestinian Youth Movement UK called the museum’s decision “deplorable,” noting it came as Israel’s assault on Gaza continues. “Palestine and Palestinians cannot be erased from history or from the present,” said PYM-Britain spokesperson Asmaa.
Cultural erasure and physical destruction are not separate strategies. They reinforce each other.
The British Museum Removed ‘Palestine’ from Its Displays. A Pro-Israel Lobby Group Celebrated.
The British Museum quietly changed several display panels in its ancient Middle East galleries, replacing references to “Palestine” and “Palestinian descent” with “Canaan” and “Canaanite descent.” The changes came after a formal complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel advocacy group that argued the museum was applying the term “Palestine” retroactively to periods predating its historical use.
UKLFI published a statement on February 14 welcoming what it described as the museum’s responsiveness to its concerns. The group had written to museum director Nicholas Cullinan arguing that labeling the ancient southern Levant as “Palestine” in displays covering 2000–300 BC was historically inaccurate and risked “erasing the history of Israel and the Jewish people.”
The museum’s public response was inconsistent. Officials initially denied the changes were made in response to the UKLFI complaint, insisting a display review had been underway for more than a year and that the director had not seen the group’s letter until after the story broke. But a petition launched by Palestinian advocacy groups and historians — gathering more than 7,000 signatures within a day — pointed out that the museum had in fact changed the panels, and that the timing and subject matter aligned precisely with what UKLFI had requested. Middle East Eye reported critics called it “historical revisionism and cultural erasure.”
Historians are divided on the underlying question. Some support using “Canaan” for the ancient period as more precise; others argue “Palestine” has been used as a geographical descriptor since at least the 5th century BCE, and that the museum’s framing adopts a political argument under the cover of historical accuracy.
What is not in dispute is the pattern UKLFI represents. This is the same organization that pressured Encyclopaedia Britannica to alter entries on Palestine, prompted the Open University to remove a reference to the Virgin Mary being born in “ancient Palestine,” and filed complaints against cultural institutions, hospitals, and universities across the UK. The group’s UK charity wing was under Charity Commission investigation as of July 2025, following complaints about its use of strategic lawsuits to silence pro-Palestinian voices.
The Palestinian Youth Movement UK called the museum’s decision “deplorable,” noting it came as Israel’s assault on Gaza continues. “Palestine and Palestinians cannot be erased from history or from the present,” said PYM-Britain spokesperson Asmaa.
Cultural erasure and physical destruction are not separate strategies. They reinforce each other.