They had no religious, or other background to make claim on the land, but Rothschild and the British knew about the oil and made sure they supported Rothschild in his claim for Israel. They never do anything for just one reason, so add it the fact that International Jewrys' influence in America was great and Britain needed America in the war.... so International Jewry cut a deal and the Belfour Declaration was the result. These conversations below give a flavor of what was going on at the time and who these people were. Very interesting if you are history buff, like I am. LOL
What was really fascinating to me was the video that shows the process the British went through to buy the Suez Canal. It was the emergency nature of the loan made by Rothschild whereby the British Gov was the "Security" which means, if he had to foreclose, he would have owned England. I am including the video in the vatic note just to show you how powerful Rothschild was in those days leading up to the obtaining of Palestine for his Khazars from Russia. As he said "Give me control of a nations currency and debt and I care not who makes the laws". Or something like that
Question: “What is your security?”
Answer: “The British Government”
Answer: “The British Government”
Rothschild: King of the “Jews” (and Israel to this day
by earthlinggb on August 12, 2010
This was a key part of Rothschild strategy to make it appear that Jews were already living in Palestine — a subterfuge that worked.
Rothschild also assisted with establishing two new colonies, Ekron and Medull. Altogether twenty-one Agricultural settlements existed by the end of the century, but Rothschild did not trust the abilities of the colonists and insisted in keeping direct supervision and control of the settlements. (VN: This explains the coin caste by the Zionists way back before Israel was a country. It acknowledges Rothschild as King of Israel. I wondered what he had done to deserve such a coin. Now we know. )
Hubert Herring in his book "And So To War" sums up the price the U.S. had to pay so that the Zionists might have Palestine:
"We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded.
We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful world.
We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria.
We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned."
And what was the quid pro-quo from the Zionists side?
As far as I could ascertain it amounted to absolutely nothing. An interesting aside was the failure of Herzl to obtain the blessing of Pope Pius X for Jewish immigration to Palestine: We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. (VN: That explains the infiltration of the vatican by the khazars early on. I wondered about that. If the Vatican had been part of Rothschild's illum families early on, they would have taken the party line on Palestine, but did not. Religious considerations overrode political and greed consideration. I wondered why Hitler agreed to release all the Jews to anywhere "but Palestine" since Hitler was a pope worshipper.)
According to A History of Zionism, pages 129-130, the exchange took place at a meeting with the Pope in 1903, meaning that Lord Arthur Balfour knew that there was strong opposition from the Catholic Church against Zionist immigration to Palestine, long before he signed on to the declaration, but about which he informed no one. So the pattern of double-dealing was already apparent in 1903.
Catholic opposition to Israel may have contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of Russia with its large Christian population. (VN: If he is talking about the agreement during WW I between Britain and the Zionists, then it would make sense. The Brits were losing WW I big time and were about to get their tooshes handed to them by the Germans and they asked their zionist controlling bankers to help them in America to push Wilson into joining the war effort on their behalf. The Zionists made it clear they wanted Britain, in return for doing that, to push for an Israeli state in Palestine, AND they wanted that promise in writing. So, the deal with cut in early WW I period and sealed in WW II. I can understand why the Pope was against the entire mess. He knew full well, the Khazars hated Christians and that was proven out in 1917 Russian Revolution where Christians were slaughtered by the millions by the khazar barbarian paganists)
Herzl, the father of Zionism died when he was 44 years old. According to A History of Zionism, he never got on very well with the Rothschilds or with Orthodox Jewry whose leading rabbis did not like his autocratic style. Herzl always wanted to have the final say on everything.
There was, as Herzl’s critics pointed out, very little specifically Jewish in Herzl. This emerges perhaps more clearly in his vision of the Jewish state…
"Herzl envisaged a modern, technologically advanced and enlightened state, enlightened by the Jews, but not specifically a Jewish state." (A History of Zionism, pages 132-133)
It can hardly be argued that Herzl was interested in Palestine as a religious “homeland” for the Jews, particularly in light of the fact, that the bulk of the new settlers came from Russia and had no previous connection to Palestine and there was no history of Russian Jews ever having lived there, nor were they particularly religious. (VN: Thats because the "Khazars of Russia" were really pagans and eventually Satanists and extremely secular compared to the real Jews.) Lacquer makes this abundantly plain.
Lord Chamberlain came forward with an offer to provide a “homeland” for the Jews
in Uganda, even though Uganda was not the British Government’s land to give. Chamberlain told Herzl that he had been on a tour of Uganda and thought:
"Here is a land for Dr. Herzl, but of course he only wants Palestine or its neighborhood."
He was right.
Herzl brushed aside the idea. His fixation was with Palestine and nothing else would do. On May 30, 1903 he wrote Rothschild:
"I am not discouraged. I already have a very powerful man to help me." (A History of Zionism, Walter Laqueur, pages 122,123) This was the true autocratic style of Herzl in action.
Although I was not able to uncover any direct links between the Rothschilds and Sir Halford Mackinder, such as correspondence that passed between intermediaries hinting that the two did consult on a number of matters, especially in writing the blue print for the coming One World Government-New World Order which had been assigned to Mackinder to complete.
A protege of the London School of Economics which was a hotbed for Communist ideals, Mackinder nevertheless put up a good conservative front and is believed to have influenced
President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference as to what steps were to be implemented to usher in a New World Order through a League of Nations mandate.
It is certain that the Rothschilds provided a great deal of input for the World Socialist dream. One month after Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference, Mackinder’s new book Democratic Ideals and Reality was published.
In his book Mackinder called for a New World Order (NWO) to be established in a One World Government, ostensibly The League of Nations. If this goal could not be achieved by peaceful, voluntary means, then force was to be resorted to. (VN: We covered that fully in the protocols. Its says it directly and clearly in those protocols, that violence was an option if not the preferred option.)
Mackinder admitted that while the New World Order would be ideally a democratic institution, it could never be expected that at times it would not be a dictatorship. The Zionists claimed that The League of Nations was their concept and this is referred to by Maria O’Grady in her book where she stated:
"President Wilson was surrounded by Jewish financial fraternity pushed hither and yon by the sinister Colonel House and counseled by the Zionist Brandeis." (Page 342)
The Zionists greatly favored the concept of a League of Nations and claimed it as their creation:
"The League is a Jewish idea," said Nahum Sokolow at the Carlsbad Conference. "We created it after a fight of 25 years."
Ultimate World Government dominated by Socialists is the long-held goal of Socialism, and it is well known that the concept was favored by the Rothschilds. As one of their own family, Jacob Schiff worked hard to establish a League of Nations.
It received a donation of 3,000 pounds from N.M. Rothschild of the London branch of the family. As we shall see there may have been an ulterior motive to this, as the League was to play a decisive role in granting a mandate for Palestine to the British Government, a decisive step along the road to granting “a Homeland” for the Jews in Palestine.
With that in mind I return to Lord Balfour and his so-called “Balfour Declaration,” based on double-dealing, deception and secret deals behind the backs of Colonel Lawrence and the Arabs.
Balfour made haste to explain that a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine did not mean the imposition of a Jewish state upon the inhabitants of Palestine, but in the light of subsequent events, this emerged as the goal of the Zionists. As Balfour put it:
". . . but the further development of the existing Jewish community, in order that they may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a whole, might take, on grounds of religion and race, interest and pride." (VN: We just did a blog on this issue. In fact, the Balfour Declaration was a result of Britain was in the process of losing WW I to Germany and needed America to come into the war. International Jewry, made a deal with Britain, if you sign a letter promising to give us Palestine, we will use our influence through our bankers to bring America into the war. That is exactly how the Belfour declaration came about. It was Bribery at its finest. It worked. America saved Britains' hindend.)
What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give, nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine. But Balfour, backed by Lord Nathan Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit.
The right of the Arab and other population groups, including Christians that extended back for more than 7,000 years was totally disregarded by Lord Balfour. No less an authority than Walter Laqueur, one of the foremost experts on Zionism confirmed that the bulk of the Jews who were to inhabit Palestine under the Balfour Declaration came from Russia.
They had no previous connection to Palestine. Laqueur also pointed out that Russian Jews were not overly happy about being uprooted from Russia and sent to Palestine:
"Russian Jewry was divided in its attitude toward Zionism and a Jewish national home (a religious homeland) and would not have in any case have been able to keep Russia in the war. The Allies on the other hand, to put it somewhat crudely, would have won the war even if no promise to the Zionists had been made."
What Laqueur was explaining, if somewhat obliquely, was the “deal” the Zionists had struck with Balfour, namely, that if the Zionists could bring the United States into the war on the side of the allies, the British would establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in return.
At a private meeting soon after the passage of the Balfour Declaration, when asked whether it had been his intention to make a bid for Jewish support in the war, Balfour snapped ‘certainly not’ and went on to explain that he felt that he was instrumental in righting a wrong of world historical dimensions.
In 1922 Balfour made a speech in which he said that the whole culture of Europe had been guilty of great crimes against the Jews, and Britain had taken the initiative in giving them the opportunity of developing in peace, the great gifts which they had, in the past been able to apply in countries of the Diaspora. (A History of Zionism, page 203)
Balfour did not explain why it was considered legal to give Palestine to the Jews when it belonged to a people who had been there for 7,000 years, especially as a big tract of land in Madagascar, as well as land in Uganda, had been offered and rejected without discussion.
Nor did Balfour explain that his magnanimous gesture in favor of the Jews would be at the expense of the Arab and other non-Jewish populations of Palestine. He never explained what connections the bulk of the new settlers, coming as they did from Russia had with Palestine.
According to Dr. Jacob de Haas, Balfour’s altruistic protestations must be very much doubted because the real motive behind the Declaration was to get the United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies.
Confirmation of the true motives behind the Balfour Declaration came from another well-founded source, Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, pages 6597-6604, which reflects a speech made in the U.S. Senate by Senator Nye:
"There has been published in a series of works under the title “The Next War.” One of the volumes in this series is entitled “Propaganda in the Next War.” This particular volume was written by one Sydney Rogerson.
I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background; but the editor in chief of all of these works, including the one entitled “Propaganda in the Next War” is by a man whose name is recognized the world over as a authority in Great Britain. He is none other than Captain Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and military authority in Europe.
I understand that this particular volume “Propaganda in the Next War,” published last fall and placed in circulation, instead of having the circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I do not have it with me today.
I am told that it is the only copy of “Propaganda in the Next War” available in the United States. It can be had, I can borrow it again if there is any occasion for me to need it in the Senate, but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish I had the entire work and that it could be read by every member of the Senate.
The following are quotations from Propaganda in the
Next War:
"From time to time the issue of which side the United States would take hung in the balance and the final result was a credit to our profaned machine. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world’s population of 15,000,000 no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25 percent of the population of New York are Jews.
During the Great War we bought off this huge Jewish public by the promise of a National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be a masterstroke of propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to the Jews in America, but to the Jews in Germany as well."
George Armstrong in his work "The Rothschild Money Trust" explains how this came about:
There can be no doubt about the fact that prior to President Wilson’s second election in 1916 he kept us out of the war. There can likewise be no doubt about the fact that he was elected on that slogan. Why did he change his mind soon after the election ? Why did he make an
arrangement with the British Government to help the Allies? That has been until now, an unexplained mystery.
Balfour’s Declaration (and A*S LICKING) of Rothschild (remember still not even 100 years ago): The%20Balfour%20Declaration
But prior to this, we also had the story of the Suez canal. But that’s another long story. For now just appreciate what this is telling you. And if you think “That’s just a fictional representation” I’d ask you to consider again because, if this was not fact, it would be libelous.
In being libelous, the Rothschild family would sue. But then again, would they? Because to create a fuss about it all would bring it all to the attention of the public – the very LAST thing that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world wish for:
Hubert Herring in his book "And So To War" sums up the price the U.S. had to pay so that the Zionists might have Palestine:
"We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded.
We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful world.
We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria.
We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned."
And what was the quid pro-quo from the Zionists side?
As far as I could ascertain it amounted to absolutely nothing. An interesting aside was the failure of Herzl to obtain the blessing of Pope Pius X for Jewish immigration to Palestine: We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. (VN: That explains the infiltration of the vatican by the khazars early on. I wondered about that. If the Vatican had been part of Rothschild's illum families early on, they would have taken the party line on Palestine, but did not. Religious considerations overrode political and greed consideration. I wondered why Hitler agreed to release all the Jews to anywhere "but Palestine" since Hitler was a pope worshipper.)
According to A History of Zionism, pages 129-130, the exchange took place at a meeting with the Pope in 1903, meaning that Lord Arthur Balfour knew that there was strong opposition from the Catholic Church against Zionist immigration to Palestine, long before he signed on to the declaration, but about which he informed no one. So the pattern of double-dealing was already apparent in 1903.
Catholic opposition to Israel may have contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of Russia with its large Christian population. (VN: If he is talking about the agreement during WW I between Britain and the Zionists, then it would make sense. The Brits were losing WW I big time and were about to get their tooshes handed to them by the Germans and they asked their zionist controlling bankers to help them in America to push Wilson into joining the war effort on their behalf. The Zionists made it clear they wanted Britain, in return for doing that, to push for an Israeli state in Palestine, AND they wanted that promise in writing. So, the deal with cut in early WW I period and sealed in WW II. I can understand why the Pope was against the entire mess. He knew full well, the Khazars hated Christians and that was proven out in 1917 Russian Revolution where Christians were slaughtered by the millions by the khazar barbarian paganists)
Herzl, the father of Zionism died when he was 44 years old. According to A History of Zionism, he never got on very well with the Rothschilds or with Orthodox Jewry whose leading rabbis did not like his autocratic style. Herzl always wanted to have the final say on everything.
There was, as Herzl’s critics pointed out, very little specifically Jewish in Herzl. This emerges perhaps more clearly in his vision of the Jewish state…
"Herzl envisaged a modern, technologically advanced and enlightened state, enlightened by the Jews, but not specifically a Jewish state." (A History of Zionism, pages 132-133)
It can hardly be argued that Herzl was interested in Palestine as a religious “homeland” for the Jews, particularly in light of the fact, that the bulk of the new settlers came from Russia and had no previous connection to Palestine and there was no history of Russian Jews ever having lived there, nor were they particularly religious. (VN: Thats because the "Khazars of Russia" were really pagans and eventually Satanists and extremely secular compared to the real Jews.) Lacquer makes this abundantly plain.
Lord Chamberlain came forward with an offer to provide a “homeland” for the Jews
in Uganda, even though Uganda was not the British Government’s land to give. Chamberlain told Herzl that he had been on a tour of Uganda and thought:
"Here is a land for Dr. Herzl, but of course he only wants Palestine or its neighborhood."
He was right.
Herzl brushed aside the idea. His fixation was with Palestine and nothing else would do. On May 30, 1903 he wrote Rothschild:
"I am not discouraged. I already have a very powerful man to help me." (A History of Zionism, Walter Laqueur, pages 122,123) This was the true autocratic style of Herzl in action.
Although I was not able to uncover any direct links between the Rothschilds and Sir Halford Mackinder, such as correspondence that passed between intermediaries hinting that the two did consult on a number of matters, especially in writing the blue print for the coming One World Government-New World Order which had been assigned to Mackinder to complete.
A protege of the London School of Economics which was a hotbed for Communist ideals, Mackinder nevertheless put up a good conservative front and is believed to have influenced
President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference as to what steps were to be implemented to usher in a New World Order through a League of Nations mandate.
It is certain that the Rothschilds provided a great deal of input for the World Socialist dream. One month after Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference, Mackinder’s new book Democratic Ideals and Reality was published.
In his book Mackinder called for a New World Order (NWO) to be established in a One World Government, ostensibly The League of Nations. If this goal could not be achieved by peaceful, voluntary means, then force was to be resorted to. (VN: We covered that fully in the protocols. Its says it directly and clearly in those protocols, that violence was an option if not the preferred option.)
Mackinder admitted that while the New World Order would be ideally a democratic institution, it could never be expected that at times it would not be a dictatorship. The Zionists claimed that The League of Nations was their concept and this is referred to by Maria O’Grady in her book where she stated:
"President Wilson was surrounded by Jewish financial fraternity pushed hither and yon by the sinister Colonel House and counseled by the Zionist Brandeis." (Page 342)
The Zionists greatly favored the concept of a League of Nations and claimed it as their creation:
"The League is a Jewish idea," said Nahum Sokolow at the Carlsbad Conference. "We created it after a fight of 25 years."
Ultimate World Government dominated by Socialists is the long-held goal of Socialism, and it is well known that the concept was favored by the Rothschilds. As one of their own family, Jacob Schiff worked hard to establish a League of Nations.
It received a donation of 3,000 pounds from N.M. Rothschild of the London branch of the family. As we shall see there may have been an ulterior motive to this, as the League was to play a decisive role in granting a mandate for Palestine to the British Government, a decisive step along the road to granting “a Homeland” for the Jews in Palestine.
With that in mind I return to Lord Balfour and his so-called “Balfour Declaration,” based on double-dealing, deception and secret deals behind the backs of Colonel Lawrence and the Arabs.
Balfour made haste to explain that a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine did not mean the imposition of a Jewish state upon the inhabitants of Palestine, but in the light of subsequent events, this emerged as the goal of the Zionists. As Balfour put it:
". . . but the further development of the existing Jewish community, in order that they may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a whole, might take, on grounds of religion and race, interest and pride." (VN: We just did a blog on this issue. In fact, the Balfour Declaration was a result of Britain was in the process of losing WW I to Germany and needed America to come into the war. International Jewry, made a deal with Britain, if you sign a letter promising to give us Palestine, we will use our influence through our bankers to bring America into the war. That is exactly how the Belfour declaration came about. It was Bribery at its finest. It worked. America saved Britains' hindend.)
What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give, nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine. But Balfour, backed by Lord Nathan Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit.
The right of the Arab and other population groups, including Christians that extended back for more than 7,000 years was totally disregarded by Lord Balfour. No less an authority than Walter Laqueur, one of the foremost experts on Zionism confirmed that the bulk of the Jews who were to inhabit Palestine under the Balfour Declaration came from Russia.
They had no previous connection to Palestine. Laqueur also pointed out that Russian Jews were not overly happy about being uprooted from Russia and sent to Palestine:
"Russian Jewry was divided in its attitude toward Zionism and a Jewish national home (a religious homeland) and would not have in any case have been able to keep Russia in the war. The Allies on the other hand, to put it somewhat crudely, would have won the war even if no promise to the Zionists had been made."
What Laqueur was explaining, if somewhat obliquely, was the “deal” the Zionists had struck with Balfour, namely, that if the Zionists could bring the United States into the war on the side of the allies, the British would establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in return.
At a private meeting soon after the passage of the Balfour Declaration, when asked whether it had been his intention to make a bid for Jewish support in the war, Balfour snapped ‘certainly not’ and went on to explain that he felt that he was instrumental in righting a wrong of world historical dimensions.
In 1922 Balfour made a speech in which he said that the whole culture of Europe had been guilty of great crimes against the Jews, and Britain had taken the initiative in giving them the opportunity of developing in peace, the great gifts which they had, in the past been able to apply in countries of the Diaspora. (A History of Zionism, page 203)
Balfour did not explain why it was considered legal to give Palestine to the Jews when it belonged to a people who had been there for 7,000 years, especially as a big tract of land in Madagascar, as well as land in Uganda, had been offered and rejected without discussion.
Nor did Balfour explain that his magnanimous gesture in favor of the Jews would be at the expense of the Arab and other non-Jewish populations of Palestine. He never explained what connections the bulk of the new settlers, coming as they did from Russia had with Palestine.
According to Dr. Jacob de Haas, Balfour’s altruistic protestations must be very much doubted because the real motive behind the Declaration was to get the United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies.
Confirmation of the true motives behind the Balfour Declaration came from another well-founded source, Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, pages 6597-6604, which reflects a speech made in the U.S. Senate by Senator Nye:
"There has been published in a series of works under the title “The Next War.” One of the volumes in this series is entitled “Propaganda in the Next War.” This particular volume was written by one Sydney Rogerson.
I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background; but the editor in chief of all of these works, including the one entitled “Propaganda in the Next War” is by a man whose name is recognized the world over as a authority in Great Britain. He is none other than Captain Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and military authority in Europe.
I understand that this particular volume “Propaganda in the Next War,” published last fall and placed in circulation, instead of having the circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I do not have it with me today.
I am told that it is the only copy of “Propaganda in the Next War” available in the United States. It can be had, I can borrow it again if there is any occasion for me to need it in the Senate, but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish I had the entire work and that it could be read by every member of the Senate.
The following are quotations from Propaganda in the
Next War:
"From time to time the issue of which side the United States would take hung in the balance and the final result was a credit to our profaned machine. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world’s population of 15,000,000 no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25 percent of the population of New York are Jews.
During the Great War we bought off this huge Jewish public by the promise of a National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be a masterstroke of propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to the Jews in America, but to the Jews in Germany as well."
George Armstrong in his work "The Rothschild Money Trust" explains how this came about:
There can be no doubt about the fact that prior to President Wilson’s second election in 1916 he kept us out of the war. There can likewise be no doubt about the fact that he was elected on that slogan. Why did he change his mind soon after the election ? Why did he make an
arrangement with the British Government to help the Allies? That has been until now, an unexplained mystery.
Balfour’s Declaration (and A*S LICKING) of Rothschild (remember still not even 100 years ago): The%20Balfour%20Declaration
But prior to this, we also had the story of the Suez canal. But that’s another long story. For now just appreciate what this is telling you. And if you think “That’s just a fictional representation” I’d ask you to consider again because, if this was not fact, it would be libelous.
In being libelous, the Rothschild family would sue. But then again, would they? Because to create a fuss about it all would bring it all to the attention of the public – the very LAST thing that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world wish for:
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
I find it interesting that Rothschild paid for the Suez Canal. As soon as I read that, I checked up on Frederic Bartholdi, the creator of the famed statue "Liberty Enlightening the World," which most people call the Statue of Liberty.
ReplyDeleteBartholdi was a sculptor and Freemason who originally had intended for the statue to by called the Statue of Egypt and to do double duty as a lighthouse at the entrance of the Suez Canal.
When the price of Egyptian cotton crashed after America's War Between the States, Egypt balked. Also, since Europeans (such as Rothschild?) rather than Egypt was making money from the canal, Egyptians couldn't afford the statue.
With minor modifications, Bartholdi redesigned the statue to represent Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom.
Many of America's founders were Freemasons, and Libertas appeared on American coins since the beginning of our Republic.