The politics of museum displays

Paris is great, even in December, but being back from Paris can be a bit of a sharp comedown.
While wending my way around the galleries of the Louvre which house ancient archaeological pieces from an area roughly described as the Levant - Palestine, Lebanon, Southern Syria, Jordan, Israel - the disparity between the different bits of the museum struck me.
In the big, exciting, fashionable, child-friendly Egypt galleries, for instance, and other areas like the Assyrian and Mesopotamian galleries, noneof which are associated with major current political issues, the spaces are clean and bright and newly-furnished-looking, and the display cabinets are new and expensive-looking, and there are attractive places to sit, and plenty of these have been sponsored by one big international corporation or another, as evidenced by the plaques with their names on.
But in the complicated and controversial and unfashionable area that is 'the Levant,' the vibe is very different, with slightly grubby walls and floors, tatty cases, little seating and older, sparser labelling of many of the objects. Granted, most of the stuff here is less sexy - no vast reconstructions of Assyrian palaces, or stunning wall-sized sculptures. But the 3-foot-high Jordanian plaster figure, older than any pottery and with blank inhuman eyes but a bizarrely realistic child's nose was pretty amazing to me. But could it be that those big corporate donors don't want to get mixed up with this stuff, that even those donors from the Arab world who are happy to claim more resplendant, less currently complex civilisations for themselves, are chary of association with this untidy, emotionally and politically loaded corner of the Middle East?