On 1949-05-18, Max Isenbergh of the American Jewish Committee’s Paris office recorded the account of a former Huckstep prisoner. The witness was born in the Kingdom of Egypt and held Italian nationality. He said that release required surrendering residence rights and agreeing never to return.1

How did release become permanent departure?

The witness described release on May 9 and a two-hour farewell to his parents under police supervision. He was not simply restored to ordinary life at home. His account connects confinement, a limited family farewell and the loss of the right to return.

He estimated that 10,000 יהודים YEHUDIM had left in the preceding year. That is his estimate, not a checked passenger register or census. The memorandum states that he reviewed and approved its contents. His own reported conditions are stronger evidence for his experience than for a rule applied identically to every departing family.

The account gives a concrete example of coerced departure even though it does not establish a universal expulsion order.

How is this dated?

The controlling date is 1949-05-18, supplied by Isenbergh’s memorandum for the memorandum. TJD converts that Gregorian civil date to י״ט באייר ה׳תש״ט 19th 𝑜𝑓 Iyar, AM 5709 using the fixed Hebrew calendar. The source does not supply this Hebrew date.2

Guided reflections

What distinguishes release with restored residence rights from release conditioned on never returning?

Why should the witness’s account of his own farewell carry a different evidentiary weight from his national departure estimate?

Footnotes

  1. Isenbergh, Recent Information from Egypt, pp. 1 to 3. https://www.hsje.org/library/HUCKSTEP_Report.PDF ↩
  2. Isenbergh, Recent Information from Egypt, pp. 1 to 3. https://www.hsje.org/library/HUCKSTEP_Report.PDF ↩

Works cited

  1. Isenbergh, Max. Recent Information from Egypt. American Jewish Committee, Paris office, 1949-05-18. Three-page memorandum. https://www.hsje.org/library/HUCKSTEP_Report.PDF. Accessed 2026-09-21.