The British Museum handling of Palestine erasure is in bad faith

In hindsight, I shouldn’t have been surprised that it was so complicated to find out why the word “Palestine” was removed from some sections of the British Museum. The difficulty was there by design. After all, the only reason why we, the public, know it happened in the first place is that a newspaper article exposed the change and the museum in the process.

The Telegraph, a conservative and staunchly pro-Israeli British publication, reported on the erasure of “Palestine” in the first place. And they attributed the change to the lobbying efforts of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Zionist organisation that dedicates itself to the erasure of Palestine, as a concept, from public life in the UK.

Why did they reveal this? The change could have gone unnoticed and uncontroversial, but for a small group of specialists. If I were a gambler, I would bet on strategic cruelty, a weapon often wielded by UKLFI, who from observation, likes to cultivate an aura of invincibility to better serve as a deterrent for pro-Palestine advocacy.

The response from civil society, academics, politicians, pro-Palestine organisations, as well as employees and members of the British Museum was swift, vocal and outraged. This is an unsurprising reaction, coming as this does, on the backdrop of the genocide in Gaza - that is both physical and cultural – and the violence, destruction and appropriation of Palestinian land and historical sites by the Israeli government in the West Bank.

The British Museum, however, seems to have been unprepared for the backlash. Instead of addressing the controversy immediately, they allowed it to crest and swell for two days of institutional silence.

This confuses me still, to this day, even after analysing every shred of information available on this topic in the public domain. You see, not only have I worked in museums, but I have also worked in compliance and risk management. A change of this magnitude in the administrative behemoth that is the British Museum, an organisation that employs more than a thousand people and is funded by the UK government, does not happen overnight.

The high-profile erasure of the term “Palestine” from displays or interpretive materials would have to involve the Director of the British Museum, possibly its Collections & Research Committee and/or the BM Board of Trustees, because of the astounding reputational risk implications.

I would have expected the museum to be prepared to defend the decision with an unassailable statement. Especially taking into consideration that the institution had already given the perception of favouritism to the pro-Israeli movement when it hosted a celebration to mark the anniversary of the Nakba and the creation of Israel. Something that it was commercially obligated to do.

Instead, the museum decided to release the following statement:

‘It has been reported that the British Museum has removed the term “Palestine” from displays. It is simply not true. We continue to use “Palestine” across a series of galleries, both contemporary and historic.’

And that was it.

A slightly wordier version of “Calm down, dear” or “Nothing to see here”. 

When challenged by global media on the topic, the British Museum offered a sometimes contradictory series of justifications that, in my opinion, were not a part of its initial statement because they just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

They firmly deny having been swayed by the efforts of the UKLFI, pointing out that the change of use of  “Palestine” has been a year in the making. The basis of their argument for the erasure is that the term has become politicised and, in their words, is no longer neutral.

They also state that the removal of the term from a small number of panels and labels is the result of audience research and feedback. And that the term Canaan is a more exact and relevant term for the region at that particular point in history. That they have decided to use “UN terminology” such as West Bank, Gaza, Israel, rather than using “Palestine” as a blanket term and will only now use “Palestine” when they deem appropriate.

There is a lot to challenge here. From the museum’s dissembling, its flawed or poorly applied logic and curatorial inconsistency, to its lack of transparency.

Let’s start with the dissembling. When the British Museum stated on their website that the word “Palestine” had not been removed, they were lying by omission. They admitted, without detailing, that they have indeed removed the term from both exhibits and labels. That is an immediate red flag that risks undermining trust in the organisation.

While the museum states that it uses UN terminology on maps showing modern boundaries (and then lists examples such as Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and Jordan), it seems to forget that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also used in UN terminology. Again, they undermine trust through omission.

Then there is the flawed, poorly applied logic, as well as the inconsistency in the museum’s curatorial approach. Using Canaan as a placename for a period that goes from 2000 BCE to 300 BCE, as is now proposed, doesn’t make sense. Because this term is as blunt a definition as the UKLFI argues the term “Palestine” to be. It flattens historical change, but with a different word.

Palestine, as a historical place name, is connected to the same name-family as Philistines, and this name-family is reflected in earlier Egyptian forms such as prst/Peleset. It has been consistently used as a placename since the time of Herodotus. Arguments that its use is an anachronism are baseless.

Also, a museum that freely uses umbrella terms such as Italy, Greece and Mesopotamia as a catch-all to describe a series of related cultures, organised societies and religions that occupied a specific geographic area, has no business telling anyone that “Palestine” is not an exact term.

Unless, of course, the institution decides to show consistency by publishing a periodisation policy explaining which terms apply to specific centuries and geographies, why they are chosen, and how it intends to implement these changes for the sake of consistency across all museum galleries, exhibits, and labels.

And last but not least, there is the issue of institutional transparency.

We are never informed of what triggered the review of the use of the term “Palestine”, or why it was given both priority and funding to be carried out, in what is the equivalent in the museum world of breakneck speed. We have been left in the dark regarding who conducted the audience research, selected the methodology, or determined the sample size. We have not even been shown the results.

We were also not told who decided the term “Palestine” went from neutral to political, what process was followed to reach these conclusions, and more importantly, why that should be a motor of change.

The Museums Association Code of Ethics explicitly calls for resisting attempts to unduly influence museum practice for private or political interest. The response to a term being deemed political is not to cave to outside pressure and erase. It should be to educate.

I have lodged a freedom of information request with the British Museum to find out how this act of cultural erasure came to pass. Something that the museum has a legal duty to answer by providing me with all information they have on the topic, from emails to minutes to a list of everything that was changed during this erasure. Like all matters connected to Palestine, this seems to be a test and a precedent that we must not allow to be carried out without resisting.

I will update you on my progress.

Helio Figueiredo is an essayist and cultural critic whose work explores geopolitics, media and history through the lens of power and colonial legacy. With a background in History and Archaeology, he examines how political realities are shaped by narrative, representation and cultural framing. He previously worked in compliance and risk within international investment banking, bringing practical insight into institutions, governance and global financial systems that informs his cultural and geopolitical analysis.

Follow Helio on Instagram: @jupitarbaal

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.