Exclusive: British Museum made false claims about its removal of ‘Palestine’ from displays

Exclusive: British Museum made false claims about its removal of ‘Palestine’ from displays Submitted by Namir Shabibi on Wed, 07/01/2026 - 10:13 Internal emails reveal changes resulted directly from complaints by pro-Israel activists, with the museum and its director subsequently misleading prominent critics The British Museum removed the terms “Palestine”, “Palestinian” and “Israelite occupation” from its displays in direct response to months of lobbying in 2024, a Middle East Eye investigation has found. In February 2026, the museum defended its decision to alter some displays, saying that “audience testing” showed the term “Palestine” to be “no longer meaningful”. However, a new disclosure by the museum to MEE, in response to a freedom of information request, confirms that no such testing was carried out, nor any visitor research related to the term “Palestine”. The museum’s various conflicting responses appear to obscure the full extent of changes made. In fact, the changes to displays dating as far as 7,500 BCE came after private and public complaints by organisations and high-profile individuals supportive of Israel between October and December 2024, museum emails show. MEE analysed two sets of heavily redacted internal emails and cross-referenced them with online complaints to identify some of the activists and public figures who lobbied the museum. Complainants include a former Daily Mail showbiz editor, a prominent historian and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a pro-Israel Jewish community organisation which recently partnered with the museum on events marking Jewish Culture Month. Those complaints were lodged, and changes agreed by the museum, over 14 months before a well-publicised intervention by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel campaigning organisation, earlier this year. Palestine ambassador protests to UK over 'erasure' from British Museum exhibits Read More » Husam Zumlot, the Palestinian ambassador in the UK, told MEE that the removal of references to Palestine in the museum's galleries was “absolutely existential for us” and said he had previously written to the museum and to the British government to demand their restoration. Zumlot said: “By removing references to Palestinian history, the British Museum is betraying their commitment to history and allowing themselves to be used for political purposes. “We will continue to work and communicate with all relevant bodies to make this message loud and clear, until the original labels are restored.” The British Museum told MEE it was “simply not true” that it had removed the term “Palestine” from displays. It did not provide answers to MEE's detailed list of questions relating to this investigation. The museum, which is publicly funded but run by a board of trustees, has faced multiple public relations crises since Nick Cullinan took over as director in 2024. In May last year, it faced criticism from its own staff after hosting an event with the Israeli embassy to mark Israel's independence day, which was attended by the country's then-ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, who has spoken in support of the destruction of Gaza. The event prompted demonstrations by pro-Palestinian campaign groups with protesters unfurling a banner reading “Colonial genocide” in the street in front of the museum's main courtyard.  Protesters gather outside the British Museum to demonstrate after the museum hosted an event for the Israeli embassy in May 2025 (Vuk Valcic/ZUMA Press Wire/Reuters) During its event with the Board of Deputies in May, the museum was forced to postpone a lecture titled “Ancient Israel and Judah in the British Museum”, citing concerns the event would be disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. The rescheduled lecture went ahead last month, with Cullinan telling the Jewish Chronicle newspaper that the museum would not “give in to intimidation”. But MEE can now reveal the context behind the British Museum’s rapid moves to appease pro-Israel lobbyists. Complainants argued that the inclusion of the term “Israelite occupation” in one display’s text on the Phoenicians, in an era over 2,000 years ago, would cause hatred and “justify attacks against Jews”. Prominent figures also sought to influence museum director Cullinan and board of trustees chair George Osborne, the former British chancellor and Conservative MP, directly. The speed at which the changes were agreed appears to undermine Cullinan’s subsequent defence that the museum’s curators had “thought long and hard” about the changes. In one case, the museum’s decision to appease a private complaint by the Board of Deputies was made within less than five hours of it being circulated internally. Controversial for defending Israel during its assault on Gaza, while attacking Israel’s critics, the Board did not reply to a request for comment by MEE. In emails urging a swift reply to one complaint, a museum staffer urged others to be “uber-conscious” of the first anniversary of the 7 October attacks. By contrast, no regard is shown for Palestinians facing what the UN calls a genocide, as well as cultural annihilation. “This chilling evidence indicates that pro-Israel groups have been simultaneously working to eliminate all mention of [Palestine’s] past,” Peter Leary, deputy director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), commented. “Deplorably, this campaign to erase Palestinian history seems to have unfolded against the backdrop of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, including the deliberate destruction of historic sites, universities and cultural institutions alongside homes, schools, hospitals.” The internal correspondence appears to contradict the museum director’s claim that the changes were made “during a regular gallery refresh”. Cullinan made the statement to reassure renowned historian William Dalrymple, who had said he was “appalled” by the erasures. Emails also reveal internal staff dissent that the museum’s position was “contradictory”, with “standard” answers already available to address complaints related to content about Israel and Palestine. But they were swiftly overruled, with the museum agreeing to make the changes requested by complainants. In his attempts to pacify growing anger at the museum, Cullinan also told Dalrymple he knew “nothing” of UKLFI’s February 2026 intervention. Though heavily redacted, MEE's analysis of the internal emails appears to belie the claim. The museum acknowledged that the redactions were made by Cullinan himself. MEE’s investigation comes after the British Museum’s inconsistent explanations provoked suspicion that it had “fallen under political influence”. The British Museum declined to substantively comment on MEE’s findings or provide answers to its detailed questions, instead reiterating a press statement made in February. A spokesperson told MEE: “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.” In the face of the lack of response to MEE’s questions, Leary, the PSC’s spokesperson, called on the museum to take steps “to address its own shameful record - by returning items looted from around the world, including Palestine - not choosing to collaborate with efforts to expunge Palestinians and their history”. In what follows, MEE charts the complaints lodged between October and December 2024, their arguments, the museum’s scramble to appease them, subsequent false statements by the museum director, and the national institution’s embrace of pro-Israel activists. Audience ‘confusion’ Earlier this year, the museum found itself at the centre of a media storm after the Telegraph claimed that UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) had successfully lobbied for the removal of the term “Palestine” from exhibits. 'Erasing history': British Museum criticised for removing references to ‘Palestine' from exhibits Read More » Dalrymple called the move “ridiculous”, “pathetic and appalling”, noting that the first mention of “Palestine” dates to 1,186 BCE and enjoys “greater antiquity than the word British”. Two hundred cultural figures urged the museum to “stop erasing Palestine”. In its defence, the museum told UKLFI and repeated in the press that “Audience testing has shown that the historic use of the term Palestine … is in some circumstances no longer meaningful”. Audience testing is when museums gather data on how visitors interact with exhibits, and the British Museum holds an “extensive archive” of such reports. But the museum admitted to having no such data after MEE asked for copies of all records relating to the audience testing of “Palestine”. It instead claimed there had been general research finding that some visitors could experience “confusion” between “‘Palestine’ as a historic regional designation …[and] the modern state of Palestine today”. It provided MEE with no copies of any such findings. Museum staff did, however, proactively concern themselves with the complaints of prominent Israel sympathisers on social media, worrying about finalising responses quickly, before the 7 October anniversary. The changes may have been approved at the highest level - the name “Eoin” mistakenly left unredacted may refer to Eoin Martin, the museum’s director of governance and board secretary. Asked if this was the case, the museum offered no comment. The emails seen by MEE appear to show that museum staff first discussed whether to make changes to Palestine-related explanatory texts in its galleries in response to a visitor complaint about an exhibit referencing the Hyskos, a group of rulers of ancient Egypt that the museum had described as being of “Palestinian descent”. Removal of “Palestinian” was “appropriate”, the complainant argued, due to “current tensions in the Middle East and the rampant disinformation… in many media”. The sender copied the email to the Board of Deputies and the US-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has been accused of smearing critics of Israel and defenders of Palestinian rights as “antisemitic”. The Board of Deputies recently defended the controversial Great Israeli Real Estate event in London, which advertised illegal colonies on stolen Palestinian land, accusing protesters of wanting to target Jews. Despite one staffer reminding colleagues that the complaint could be addressed with the museum’s “standard answer”, a day later the museum assured the individual complainant that “a revised panel will be produced and installed as soon as possible”. A staffer suggested changing the panel to “rulers originating in Palestine”. Within 20 minutes they were overruled: in a reply set to “high importance”, a decision was made to change the text to “rulers of Canaanite origin”. A month later, on 28 November, a museum staffer circulated a tweet from former Daily Mail showbiz editor Nicole Lampert, complaining about an old permanent gallery panel on the Phoenicians. In her post, Lampert claims that the statement “Israelites occupied most of Palestine” was “factually wrong - dangerously so”. Multiple museum teams circulated Lampert’s tweet internally. Yet there is no evidence of any due diligence on Lampert, or her possible political motivations behind her complaint. Lampert, a fierce defender of Israel, recently claimed family members of Jewish Green Party leader Zack Polanski told her they feared having to flee the UK in the event of a Green Party win, calling it “the future Islamic party of Britain”. The next day, the museum received a separate private complaint which argued that “if the British Museum labels Jews as occupiers this will justify attacks against Jews.” Within days, museum staffers had decided that the Phoenicians panel should be changed from rulers of “Palestinian descent” to “Canaanite descent”, to “prevent such misunderstandings”, with edits to Room 57 text on the Ancient Levant confirmed in internal emails, along with an intention to “look at the maps in Room 4”. None of the emails exchanged reference the formal processes of visitor research and audience testing to justify changes to the texts. Instead, the museum appears troubled by “concerns that we’re seeing on social media” that the texts were developed “in reaction to the conflict in the region” - though some of the disputed texts were installed between 1998 and 2008. Days later, museum staff reference retweets of Lampert’s post, including by “high profile historians”. This is likely a reference to historian and TV presenter Simon Sebag Montefiore, who echoed her complaint. He described the term “Israelite occupation” as “progressive presentist inversion and distortion of history”. Montefiore has previously accused Palestinian rights campaigners of “exploiting medieval tropes of antisemitism”. Montefiore reminded his followers that he knew the museum director, Cullinan, and its chair, Osborne, “well”. He then assured his followers that “they’ll be the first to oversee its correction”. A week following Lampert and Montefiore’s interventions, the museum faced a new complaint, this time raised in a letter from the Board of Deputies, although the normally vocal lobby group did not publicise its intervention. While the museum has not disclosed the Board’s letter, subsequent museum emails reveal that it related to an exhibit panel which read “Israelites occupied most of Palestine”, with the complaint that “occupied” had become “politically charged in the context of contemporary politics”. Within five hours of the letter being circulated, a staffer proposed notifying the lobby group that the words “Israelites” and “occupied” would be removed “to ensure that the meaning intended is clear for our audiences”. The museum’s reasoning behind the change was simply that the terms were “unnecessary”. Subsequent internal correspondence shows the changes were implemented in January 2025. Left: The more recent Phoenician panel, with no reference to Palestine. Right: The previous version of the panel with reference to Palestine and the Philistines. (Images provided to and published by New Lines magazine) At some point in 2025, a change is also made to the entrance to the Ancient Levant room, removing “modern Palestine” from a longer list of countries, and replacing it with Gaza and the West Bank. Discussions around this change are referenced but not discussed extensively in the disclosures analysed by MEE. However, the changes were captured in photos shared with New Lines magazine. Gaslighting critics MEE's investigation appears to raise questions about the British Museum's public response in the wake of UKLFI's intervention in February, and its claim that it has not removed “Palestine” from exhibit texts. At the time, Cullinan claimed to Dalrymple that the changes were made “during a regular gallery refresh”, and that the museum’s curators had “thought long and hard” about them. Both assertions appear to have been disproven by the museum’s own emails, and the museum director appears to have made other implausible statements. He told Dalrymple he “knew nothing about” the UKLFI-related storm, and that he “hadn’t even seen that [UKLFI] letter” until four days after the museum issued its response - “despite asking for it”. Cullinan’s claim appears to be contradicted both by the museum’s internal correspondence, and by UKLFI itself. UKLFI’s letter is addressed to Cullinan by name, and sent directly to his office email. Internal correspondence also confirms that staff “flagged [it] with the Director’s Office”. The museum has already proven impervious to staff fury and broader culture worker protests over events linked to Israel, such as the embassy's independence day celebration last year. As well as Hotovely, this was attended by prominent politicians including Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch, the respective leaders of the Reform and Conservative parties. 'Disgusted and betrayed': British Museum ignores mounting staff anger over Israel event Read More » Staff told MEE that they received “absolute non-responses” from management to multiple letters. Last year, the museum held a fundraising “Pink Ball”, featuring BP and companies accused by activists of links to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, including JCB and Reliance Defence. But following a successful campaign, multiple celebrities, including Idris Elba and Zadie Smith, pulled out. Writing for the Sunday Times ahead of the museum's hosting last month of the rescheduled lecture with the Board of Deputies to mark Jewish Culture Month, Cullinan lamented protests outside the museum which had prompted its earlier postponement at an “understandably difficult moment for the Jewish community in the UK”. MEE could find no such expression of sympathy by Cullinan for the Palestinian people in the face of mass destruction of their heritage and people. Cullinan continued: “We live in uneasy times, when historical subjects are often drawn into contemporary conflicts. Yet the answer cannot be to abandon difficult conversations.” Unless, MEE's investigation appears to suggest, that conversation concerns Palestine. Zumlot, Palestine's ambassador, told MEE he had spoken to Cullinan on the phone on 16 February, shortly after the story of the removal of references to Palestine had first emerged. The museum's director, Zumlot said, had been “absolutely insistent that nothing has changed”. But Zumlot was unconvinced. “From day one the British Museum’s story did not add up. I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt having conducted our own investigation and discovered the removal of references to ancient and modern-day Palestine, despite formal recognition by the UK government.,” he said. “Erasing history is the first step to erasing the future. This is absolutely existential for us in light of the ongoing genocide.” Israel's genocide in Gaza The Big Story Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:28 Update Date Override 0