Firstly, sorry for the delay in posting this update. As you can imagine, with the recent events of the illegal and unjust attacks on Iran, I have been somewhat busy. 

However, I recently received a reply from the British Museum (I am not permitted to show it due to copyright reasons) regarding my formal complaint about the removal of the term “Palestine” from panels in the Ancient Levant gallery. Their email claimed that media reports were “inaccurate,” insisted that “no erasure” had taken place, and framed the change as a purely “curatorial decision” based on academic expertise. They also stated that they continue to use UN terminology for modern maps and pointed to the presence of Palestinian costumes in the Islamic Gallery and a small display on Palestine and Gaza installed last year.

My full response to them challenged these points directly and in detail. I made clear that:

The issue is not media reporting but the Museum’s own decision to remove the word “Palestine” from panels where it previously appeared.
Labelling this as a “curatorial decision” does not explain the timing, the process, or the political implications of erasing a name tied to an indigenous people.
Positioning Palestine exclusively within the Islamic Gallery is historically inaccurate and reinforces a reductive, politically convenient framing that erases Palestine’s multi‑faith, multi‑ethnic heritage.
Invoking UN terminology is not neutral, given the UN’s long history of partitioning and administering our land without our consent.
Transparency is required: who made this decision, what academic justification was used, whether any Palestinian scholars were consulted, and whether the Museum will release the documentation behind the change.
I also requested a meeting between the Museum and Palestinian academics or community representatives, and reiterated my responsibility—as Ambassador of the Palestinian Diaspora—to challenge any institutional erasure of our history or any framing that sidelines the rights of Palestinians in the diaspora, including the right of return.

Here is my response in full.

Dear British Museum Team,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the clarification regarding media reports, but your message does not address the central concern: the removal of the term “Palestine” from specific panels where it previously appeared. Calling this a “curatorial decision” does not explain the rationale, the timing, or the political implications of erasing a name tied to an indigenous people.

Your reply also raises two additional concerns that require clarification:

1. Positioning Palestine exclusively within the Islamic Gallery is inaccurate and reductive.
Palestine is a multi‑faith, multi‑ethnic nation with Christian, Muslim, Samaritan, Jewish, and Druze histories deeply rooted in the land. Presenting Palestine only within an Islamic context reinforces a political narrative that aligns with the two‑state framing and implies that Palestinian identity is exclusively Muslim. This is historically incorrect and contributes to the erasure of Palestine’s plural heritage.

2. Invoking “UN terminology” does not resolve the issue.
For Palestinians, the Imperialist UN is part of the same Western political architecture that partitioned, administered, and continues to shape our land without our consent. Relying on UN terminology as the sole arbiter of legitimacy is therefore not neutral, nor is it acceptable to Palestinians. It also does not explain why the term “Palestine” was removed from historical panels where it had previously been used.

To move this conversation forward constructively, I would appreciate clear, direct answers to the following:

What was the exact academic justification for removing the term “Palestine” from the panels in question?
Which curators or external experts were involved in this decision, and were any Palestinian scholars consulted?
Why was the term removed now, and what alternative terms were considered?
Will the Museum publish the curatorial review or internal documentation that led to this change?
Is the Museum willing to meet with Palestinian academics or community representatives to review the decision?
I raise this not only as an individual but in my capacity as Ambassador of the Palestinian Diaspora, with a responsibility to challenge any erasure of our history or reinforcement of political framings—such as the two‑state solution—that deny Palestinians in the diaspora our internationally recognised right of return.
The Museum’s stated commitment to accuracy, independence, and consistency requires transparency on these points. Without it, the decision appears selective and politically influenced, regardless of how it is framed.

I look forward to your detailed response.

Kind regards,
Taghrid Al‑Mawed
Ambassador, Palestinian Diaspora

****

 
Why this matters

The Museum’s reply was not only inadequate—it was dismissive. It sidestepped every substantive concern, reduced a political act to “routine curation,” and attempted to pacify the issue by pointing to isolated displays elsewhere in the building. This is not transparency. It is not accountability. And it is certainly not the standard expected from an institution that claims to uphold accuracy, independence, and consistency.

Their response was basic, evasive, and frankly insulting to Palestinians who have endured generations of erasure—geographical, cultural, and political.

We are not accepting this. We are not stepping back. We are carrying this fight forward.

The British Museum must answer for its decisions, and it must do so publicly, transparently, and with the involvement of Palestinian scholars and communities—not behind closed doors and not through vague, dismissive statements.