Father-son relationship between Alexander Gideon and Boaz Gideon

The Father-son relationship between Alexander Gideon and Boaz Gideon is a bond repeatedly offered in practical terms and resisted as a claim to authority. Alexander tries to provide money, work, a home, and eventually a route to legal custody; Boaz insists on making his own choices and questions whether the money is truly meant for him. Their exchanges leave affection and obligation entangled with independence, inheritance, and the unresolved question of biological paternity.

Identity and Background

In the correspondence, Boaz writes as Boaz Brandstetter, while the relationship is also identified through the name Boaz Gideon. The evidence here establishes Alexander’s paternal role through his direct address to Boaz as his son, his provision for him, and his effort to obtain custody; it does not independently resolve whether he is Boaz’s biological father. That distinction matters to the relationship’s stakes: fatherhood appears as both a personal bond and a position Alexander seeks to formalize.

Before their exchange, Alexander has given money to Michel Sommo for Boaz. Boaz learns of the arrangement from Michel and Manfred Zakheim, but says that Michel will not hand over the money and has left him only a few pennies. He acknowledges that Michel has helped him when he has been in trouble, yet objects to Michel keeping the funds while also telling him what to do. The complaint is not simply about cash: Boaz rejects the idea that assistance should purchase obedience.

Letters and the Offer of Independence

Writing from Kiryat Arba, where he works and earns money in an optical workshop, Boaz tells Alexander that he does not want further favors from Michel or direction from anyone else. He says the place is not for him but refuses to explain why, insisting that the decision is none of Alexander’s business. His letter makes the money conditional on its intended recipient: if Alexander gave it to Michel, Boaz has nothing more to say; if it was meant for Boaz, he wants to know why it never reached him. The question puts the father-son bond to a test of intention and delivery rather than sentiment alone.

In his reply of 23 July 1976, Alexander accepts Boaz’s wish to live without being told what he should or should not do. He adds that he had wanted the same freedom but had not been strong enough to claim it. For the moment, he proposes setting aside the disputed money held by Michel and gives Boaz two alternatives. He can go to America, where Alexander will arrange a place to stay and a job, perhaps in optics, with the possibility of later study; repayment from his wages would be optional, not urgent. Alexander also warns him about the initial language difficulty and notes that in America nobody has cousins in the police.

The alternative is a large, abandoned house near Zikhron Yaakov. Though in poor condition, it offers Boaz work restoring it, a fair monthly wage, and Alexander’s payment for building materials and other expenses. Boaz may invite anyone he likes to live there; there is also scope for agriculture, and the house is not far from the sea. Alexander presents the arrangement as a way for Boaz to build a life on his own terms, not as a demand for reconciliation. He instructs him to consult Roberto di Modena in Jerusalem, rather than Manfred Zakheim, and says the lawyer has authority to carry out either decision immediately. Boaz need not reply to Alexander. The offer translates paternal concern into choices, while trying to remove the direct pressure of a father’s command.

Presence, Distance, and the House

When Ilana visits the house, she first hears Boaz answering a woman in his slow, quiet bass. The sound recalls Alexander’s voice while also seeming unlike it; she is content simply to hear Boaz and initially decides to leave without being seen. The moment presents the father-son relation through resemblance and difference, as experienced by someone who knows both men, rather than through an explanation of lineage. Boaz eventually notices her and calmly identifies her as Ilana.

Asked why he accepted the house from Alexander, Boaz says he does not hate him but is against hatred and has nothing to do with him. He regrets that Alexander left the country while it was in trouble, even as he admits he would like to travel once the country is no longer in crisis. On the money, Boaz is unapologetic: he does not care whether it comes from Alexander, Michel, or both, arguing that none of them earned it through hard work. He says he has something to do with that money. His acceptance of the house therefore does not erase distance; he can take material support while denying that it obliges him to adopt Alexander’s wishes or to restore intimacy.

Custody, Inheritance, and the Unsettled Bond

Alexander’s later telegram to Michel proposes changing his will so that Michel will receive one quarter and the rest will go to Boaz, provided Michel agrees to a legal transfer of custody to Alexander until Boaz comes of age. The proposal links inheritance to custody: Alexander’s provision for Boaz becomes part of a larger attempt to secure a recognized paternal place in his life. The message records an offer and a condition, not proof that custody was transferred or that the will was changed as proposed.

Across these episodes, the bond moves between care and contest. Alexander makes support concrete through wages, a home, work, travel, and a proposed inheritance; Boaz answers by insisting on self-determination and treating money as something to which he has a claim, not a favor that grants its giver control. His willingness to accept the house sits beside his declaration that he has nothing to do with Alexander, preserving the contradiction rather than resolving it. The relationship is consequently defined by acts of provision and the struggle over what those acts mean: Alexander offers a future as a father, while Boaz reserves the right to decide whether that offer carries emotional or practical authority.