Alexander Gideon's will

Alexander Gideon’s will is less a settled statement of inheritance than a changing instrument through which Alexander Gideon tries to influence the people around him. Its provisions shift from reassuring Manfred Zakheim about the grandchildren’s place in the estate, to making custody a condition of inheritance, to securing Boaz Brandstetter’s future and transferring the family property to him. The will’s repeated revision turns private wealth into a contested language of care, leverage, and attempted atonement.

The will as leverage

In correspondence with Michel Sommo, Manfred Zakheim warns that Alexander Gideon’s renewed contact with Ilana Sommo could unsettle Michel’s position. He says the will, in its current form, is relatively favorable to Michel, while Alexander’s illness might lead him to act unexpectedly. For Zakheim, the testament is not merely a record of future intentions: its existing terms create possibilities for cooperation between Michel and Alexander, and make Alexander’s renewed relationship with Ilana a possible threat to those possibilities.

Alexander’s telegram to Zakheim makes that insecurity explicit. He insists that the Zikhron property is not for sale, directs Zakheim to hand the papers to Roberto di Modena, and tells him to continue trying his luck with Michel. He also warns Zakheim that his grandchildren remain in the will. The warning answers Zakheim’s attempt to manage the property and signals that the testament can still be used to protect Zakheim’s family, even while Alexander resists the proposed handling of his estate.

That reassurance is not permanent. Later, Alexander tells Michel that he has decided to change the will: Michel is to receive one quarter, with the remainder going to Boaz, provided Michel agrees to a legal transfer of custody of Boaz to Alexander until the boy comes of age. The proposed inheritance is therefore tied directly to custody. Michel rejects the premise that Boaz can be exchanged for money, and asks instead for a donation toward redeeming land and for the boy to be returned to the Sommos’ supervision. The correspondence exposes the will’s central tension: Alexander presents provision as care, while Michel reads its conditions as an attempt to purchase authority over a child.

Changing beneficiaries and conditions

The will also becomes a source of friction between Alexander and Zakheim. Zakheim recalls that Alexander has repeatedly used the promise of a bequest for Zakheim’s grandchildren while asking for costly assistance. He points out that he is investing about $250 a month in Goliath on Alexander’s instructions and says that Alexander has substantial funds in the William Tell account after the Magdiel–Toulouse deal. His complaint is not simply that the will may change; it is that Alexander’s generosity toward Zakheim’s descendants cannot erase the unpaid costs and obligations Zakheim has taken on.

In a later letter to Michel, Alexander describes a revised will intended to provide for both Boaz and Michel’s family. He says that Michel’s daughter should be protected from the poverty her father experienced, so long as Michel does not squander the money on messianic investments. The provision is presented alongside a small domestic exchange with the girl: she brings Alexander an improvised remedy of kerosene and mulberry leaves and a dead grasshopper in a plastic bag, and he gives her three paper boats. Her visit gives the promised inheritance a personal scale, connecting financial provision to an encounter between a sick man and a child rather than leaving it as an abstract settlement between adults.

The estate’s value sharpens the stakes. Alexander reports that Zakheim values it at roughly two million dollars and calculates that Michel’s share, after Boaz’s half is deducted, would still be substantial. Yet the figure does not settle the conflict. Alexander says Zakheim plans to take him to Jerusalem for radiotherapy and return Boaz to Michel, but he has decided to stay with his son at Zikhron. The possibility of dividing the estate remains intertwined with Alexander’s decision about where, and with whom, he will spend his remaining time.

Threats, transfers, and the final direction

Even after describing the revised will as provision for the family, Alexander retains the power to threaten another change. In a moment of anger toward Michel, he says he could leave the entire estate to the Protection of Animals and the Council for Reconciliation with the Palestinians. The threat would remove the inheritance from the family altogether. It reveals how readily the testament can become an instrument of retaliation, and how the prospect of a bequest continues to shape the dispute even when Alexander’s physical strength is failing.

The later instructions reported by Ilana show a more concrete direction. After Rahel and Yoash urge Ilana not to abandon her daughter, Ilana asks Alexander whether he would let Michel and Yifat visit at Boaz’s invitation. Alexander agrees, jokes about the number of rooms, and offers Michel $100 for each day he stays. He then urgently summons Zakheim, orders another $20,000 transferred to Michel, and instructs him to put the house and surrounding land in Boaz’s name. Zakheim’s daughter receives a small plot near Nes Ziyyona, and Zakheim receives two cases of champagne. These additional gifts accompany the property transfer, but the text does not establish that every earlier proposed division was legally completed.

Taken together, the will’s successive forms trace a movement from conditional bargaining toward provision for Boaz and the Sommo family. That movement is not a simple resolution: Alexander still uses money to exert pressure, and the threat to redirect the estate remains part of the record. But placing the house and land in Boaz’s name gives the boy a claim to the family property, while the transfer of money to Michel and the provision for Michel’s daughter extend Alexander’s concern beyond his biological heir. The will thus records both the persistence of control and an effort, made under the pressure of illness and impending death, to turn wealth into a more durable act of care.