Between Us: Israel, Jews, and the West – a podcast from the Atlanta Israel Coalition
James Palmer, founder of Mondex Corporation, spoke with host Uri on Between Us, the podcast of the Atlanta Israel Coalition. This is the full transcript of their conversation.
Uri: This is Between Us, a podcast from the Atlanta Israel Coalition about Israel, the Jewish people, and the West. This fall a Kandinsky sold at Christie’s in London for about forty-two million dollars. A Dutch Jewish family owned it until 1940. Then it spent decades with a German state bank, and the family’s heirs only got it back in 2023.
The man who got it back has been at this for more than 30 years. Almost nobody’s left who can say that was ours. So, somebody has to prove it for them. Museums and banks can’t stand him. Some call him a Holocaust hustler, but his clients call him something else entirely. His name is James Palmer. James started a company called Mondex in Toronto in 1993. It’s comprised of historians, provenance researchers, and lawyers and so far they’ve gotten back 47 or so works, Chagall and the Kandinsky among them.
James, thank you so much for doing this and welcome.
James Palmer: My pleasure. Thank you as well. I should correct just one misunderstanding. Some museums love us, so it’s nice to set that record straight. But go ahead if you have any questions.
Uri: That’s good. And hopeful as well. It does feel this is like, you know, sort of you wanna be on the right side of history at most everything, and this one seems pretty clear. So, let’s go back to after the Kandinsky sold and somebody from Christie’s took you and the family down for one last look. What was that like? You said you had to say goodbye to it. Do you feel like you get attached or how does that look?
James Palmer: Well, let me if you’ll allow me to give you like a one-minute sort of quick overview to give you and some of your listeners some context. So, the Second World War was I guess interpreted by the Nazis as an opportunity to engage in one of the greatest thefts, probably the greatest theft in history, whereby about twenty percent of the art in Europe was looted and this took place naturally during the Holocaust, during the Second World War. And our company began in nineteen ninety-three with just general restitution, but in nineteen ninety-eight we started to focus on the restitution of looted artworks. And we now are comprised of a team of about twenty-seven historians, researchers, and support staff in several different countries and a legal team of about I guess we’re up to about thirty lawyers now in many different countries.
And so, we work together in different languages in different countries, you know, crafting or doing research to the nth degree. And I can get into that later and you’ll see some sort of examples of that as we go, I would imagine. And crafting restitution strategies, as you can probably imagine, the work is quite complex and deals with legal issues in many different countries over several different decades. So, and not just legal issues, but moral issues and all sorts of issues on many different levels. So sorry, back to your original question. What was it like? It was, it was pretty a pretty amazing experience and a tumultuous journey to get to Christie’s about, I think it was about fifteen years after we began the process.
So, it took quite some time. We had quite a bit of opposition, as you can imagine, people and entities in general tend to be resistant to restitution, although that’s changing. And so even though I was having a little tongue in cheek comments there about museums, you know, in the early days, particularly in the United States, if you would contact a museum and you know tell them that you were interested in getting your grand grandfather or great uncle or whatever’s artwork back that was restituted they would often sue you with you know, as a pre-emptive strike, hoping to catch you off guard and you would probably lose the case, because most people weren’t prepared, and the museum would keep the painting, and that would be the end of the claim.
And that’s just one example of the sort of minefield that we have to deal with when we deal with restitution. That later evolved with the introduction of the HEAR Act in the United States in twenty sixteen, which President Obama introduced about a week before he left office, which was amazing. And we were we had heard about that Act, you know, trying to make its way through the different channels, and we were very grateful that it did. And that Act unified the different states that had different statutory deadlines and so on, and gave claimants six years from the date that they knew about the location of their looted artwork and who possessed it, and you know, some other details.
And so that it was an amazing step forward. And that was in response to the museum’s very hostile position in general to restitution. And then if you skip forward a few years or several years, you know, museums started to change their behavior a little bit, as you could understand. They had a lot of public backlash. There were a few cases that sort of brought this to public scrutiny. And recently, President Trump passed the 2026 HEAR Act, which was referred to as the 2025 HEAR Act, but it was passed in the early part of this year. And that allowed the claims of claimants, that go through the court, to be judged more on their merits and less on their technical defenses.
One example of a technical defense would be – we have a claim, for example, with the Met Museum for the restitution of an important Pissarro painting. And so normally we would expect in this day and age that museums, particularly in the United States, would respect the claimants, allow them to have the dignity that they deserve and view the claim, and focus on the merits of the claim rather than trying to avoid the claim through technical defenses. So, in that case we had to bring a claim because the Met was not responding in the way that we thought it should and we thought that – we were quite shocked actually at their behavior. So, a legal claim was filed in France and we expect that to be heard in the spring of next year.
So, you should read about that – it’ll be a really interesting case and the decision will be interesting. But getting back to your question – I’m sorry – is that you know, in the Kandinsky claim we faced many obstacles that were even more outrageous than the one I just explained with the Met. Well there were two Kandinsky paintings in the Lewenstein case.
And I think it’s interesting in this case because of your comment, even though it was tongue in cheek about museums, you know, and I’m flipping around a bit because there’s so much information to deal with and I hope that you’ll be okay with this sort of flipping around a bit. But, you know, if you go back or if you fast forward to just a few weeks ago, you have an amazing example of the Art Institute of Chicago restituting a Metzinger painting to the same family. They allowed the family the dignity, the pride, the joy, and the closure that a restitution can bring. And I can’t think of a better example than the Art Institute of Chicago who was able to recognize the merits of a claim and address it. And they did – I mean that was a wonderful gesture on so many levels.
And then getting back to this claim, it basically involved not just the Metzinger painting, but like I said, two Kandinsky paintings. One we’ll call the Dutch Kandinsky. The title of that painting was Bild mit Hausern, or Building with Houses or Painting of Houses. And then the German Kandinsky the title is Das bunte Leben which is A colorful life. And we’ll call them the German and the Dutch Kandinsky just for the sake of simplicity. So, in the in these cases, these claims were done almost in parallel with very similar situations. The Dutch Kandinsky and I believe that claim was initiated first and that was followed by the German Kandinsky. And the claim for the German Kandinsky involved a lot of mechanics, if you will, a lot of strategic decision making.
There was a lawsuit, for example, launched in New York. At the same time we were having discussions with the Bayerische Landesbank, which was the buyer of the painting back in 1972. They loaned it to the Lenbachhaus Museum. So it was in Munich, Germany since 1972. And interestingly, the woman who was at the helm of the Lenbachhaus Museum back in seventy two was also involved in looting of Jewish homes in Tyrolia during the war and later hired by the American government as an expert at the Munich Collection Point.
So, you’re just getting sort of an inkling of some of the contradictions and complexities of these types of cases. But I have to say that the claim for the German Kandinsky – it was very difficult, not just in terms of evidence, but also emotionally, and I do my best to keep some distance, just for my own sort of I guess mental health to some extent to the atrocities of the Holocaust and so on, because we deal with it every day. And we try to focus on the intellectual challenges that we have and so on. And that was difficult in this case, because we had a situation here where initially the bank wasn’t responsive and we – in our meeting with them a few years ago – that was a very difficult meeting for me on so many levels.
Imagine if you will, I’m sitting on one side of the table beside my colleague president and CEO Kamila Gourdie of Mondex and our lawyer in Germany, Michael Hecker, one of our attorneys in Germany. And on the other side is the Director of Legal Affairs and his associate and he takes in his hands a copy of our submission, which was about two inches thick, and sort of casts it to one side of his desk, like literally casting it. And knowing that the family had been despoiled of about a hundred of its artworks, its entire art collection, and knowing that a number of members of the family had been murdered during the Holocaust. And knowing that the family members who survived had to flee for their lives, he said, “I don’t know why your clients are so emotional about this”. And he looked at me with a very stern face with zero emotion. And my heart was beating. I could feel the adrenaline, I was sweating, and I was looking at him.
And I realized that he was just waiting for my response. And so, I wondered if that was just a strategy, you know, of his, or if this was some sort of way that he got pleasure out of that. That was uncertain to me at the time. But anyway, we had prepared some questions.
And we went through those questions. And I could see you know, some cracks in the dam as he and his colleague went from a very well rehearsed presentation to trying to address these questions that we had prepared. And you could see the water sort of coming through the dam here and there were some cracks and that were beginning – something like a turning point. And as I mentioned to you, we filed a lawsuit in New York and there was also quite a bit of media coverage at some point about this case and about the lawsuit. And at the same time things were evolving in Germany where they went from this Limbach Commission ultimately to this German Advisory Commission, which was, in my opinion, much more objective and responsive and responsible for making decisions, and took into account moral issues and legal issues and so on and so forth.
And we submitted to the German Advisory Commission about a thousand-page report with well over five hundred exhibits. It was prepared over, you know, accumulated and prepared over a decade, you know, from the beginning at least, but at least a couple of years to, you know, assemble all that evidence and explain the entire story. The defendants on the other side basically had I think about a dozen exhibits and their case was very weak. And so, The German Advisory Commission, to its credit, did an incredible job of going through all of this evidence, understanding all the different nuances, the implications, the significance, and made a decision that was very sound, objective and fair and that that painting had to be restituted.
So, when we get to Christie’s, you know, in London with the sale, you know, in the process of taking place. All of these emotions and all of these moments are in our minds. And the fact that we prevailed was quite incredible. And it was a very important moment for not just us and our team, but much more so for the family – the claimants themselves. You can imagine being the child of a survivor and all of the torment and guilt and all the emotions that go with that and the catharsis and the release and the and the joy and the dignity and the sense of closure and justice for the first time in decades. It’s an incredibly moving time.
And that that moment was preceded by the restitution of the Dutch Kandinsky. And that was as equally, if not a more important moment, in that case, we were dealing with the Dutch Restitution Committee. That was an adjudicatory body set up by the Ministry of Culture. And they spent many years putting together again extensive evidence. We got in all sorts of experts and they rejected the claim. And that was a really interesting experience, a very painful one, where the restitution committee, at least its chairman, I believe, decided to ignore some of our evidence because – it fit better with his narrative and/or their narrative. And decided to rely to a great extent on conjecture and supposition and not objective evidence.
And that already is very problematic, as you can well imagine. But then we get into the reality that members of the committee who also have ties with the Stedelijk Museum, which happened to be in possession of the painting of that you know, the Dutch Kandinsky. And now you’ve got some significant conflicts of interest which should have been addressed by these members without us having to do research to see if there’s any connection. And that’s just part of what we did. And it was shocking to see that there was this connection and that they didn’t recuse themselves proactively. And then and then it became clear that in that claim we had significant issues with rule of law, with the constitutional behavior, legal, you know, responsibility being omitted, you know, this selective, you know, use of evidence.
It was just a nightmare. So, there was a great deal of criticism of the Dutch restitution committee, and at the same time by chance, the restitution committee was having a good re-evaluation of its structure, its policy. And we got involved in that as well with our lawyers in the Netherlands to help the Restitution Committee adopt a new set of guidelines to help it be more objective and to remove what they had, which was the balance of interest test.
And the balance of interest test, which they were using up to the point of our claim, was basically if the museum finds the painting of interest to its customers, that should supersede the interest of the claimants who have a legal entitlement to the painting, which is absolutely outrageous, you know, to I think – to a normal person. But they were trying to use that as a justification to keep the painting.
And I remember in 2018 being in Berlin and watching Stuart Eizenstat, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, who’s basically the father of restitution, who developed the Washington Principles and back in 1998 in the Clinton administration, stood up and said, No, this balance of interest test has no place and is totally incongruent with the principles of the Washington Declaration. And so eventually the Kohnstamm Committee, which was formed to reevaluate the structure, the template, if you will, of claims coming forward, that was modified. The balance of interest test was removed. And we did a great deal to help make permanent changes with helping other families benefit coming forward in the Netherlands, which was a great feeling. And the city of Amsterdam took this into account, this new framework, and they decided to restitute the painting.
And that was already an incredible achievement and series of steps and so on and feelings and emotions and accomplishments and so on. And I have to tell you about one special moment that when we had the restitution ceremony in the basement of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, one of our experts who we called in who is a man in who’s about eighty years old, a lovely man, who’s multilingual and who is an art historian, as well as being a lovely man and an art historian and gifted in so many ways, he’s also a rabbi. And so, it was it was really something to interact with him on so many levels during this process.
And I saw the son of one of the claimants in his arms crying you know, after that the painting was restituted in Amsterdam. So that was a very special moment. But then after all of that, we I was approached by a chap named Pieter van Os, who is a journalist for the NRC. And the NRC is a newspaper, the one probably the top newspaper in the Netherlands, to my knowledge. And it’s like the New York Times, I suppose, or the Wall Street Journal of their country. And he contacted me and said, James, you know we’re doing a series of eight podcasts and in one of those episodes we’d like to you know deal about the Kandinsky claim and talk to you.
And I said, sure. And it turned out later that that was a lie and that although he wanted to speak with me, all eight episodes were about our Kandinsky painting. And he probably thought it would be better to leave that fact out when he spoke with me, because he probably thought I’d be a bit alarmed. So, I spoke with him and I did have a bad feeling while I was chatting with him and anyway, we completed that interview, but he didn’t ask me about some of the major allegations that he was going to make.
And what he did, which was very similar to the Restitution Committee, is he made this series of podcasts, but he decided to ignore the evidence and rely on conjecture and supposition, even to the extent where he said, you know what? “I know that some of your clients…”, and these are biologically these are the grandchildren of the despoiled people. “I know that they’re not lawful heirs or they’re not heirs”. And I just thought, what a bizarre and stupid thing to say. And but he said it anyway. And he – and what I found incredible was he went through this in these eight episodes of podcasts that were produced with the NRC’s blessing, he went through this series of lies and omissions and conjecture and all sorts of things to the point where he accused the family and us, I believe, of “playing the Jew card”, quote unquote, you know, by making this claim. And he claimed that the painting wasn’t looted. And he claimed that the, you know, the heirs were not heirs.
And he claimed – he made all sorts of claims – and one of the persons involved in the story was Irma. And he claimed that Irma went and probably took the paintings to this auction. And since she took the paintings to the auction, you know, this was the kind of supposition he would build on and that was conjecture, but then he made a story that she had factually taken these paintings to the auction, received the money, so on and so forth. And it was really disturbing. And conveniently he ignored the close to one-thousand-page report and the detailed analysis of the German Advisory Commission and all the evidence. He decided to ignore all that. And it was very painful to hear these allegations and so on.
So, we filed a lawsuit against the NRC and we learned something about podcasts. So, this is my second podcast, just so you know.
Uri: Well I hope this one is going a little bit better and ends up not in a lawsuit.
James Palmer: It’s going much better. And I don’t I don’t think there’s much chance that we would file a claim against you, so with respect to this NRC lawsuit, it became clear that it was necessary to file that lawsuit. We filed the lawsuit, we lost in the first instance, and the judge took the position that there was some reconciliation by Pieter van Os in the last episode.
And so, we thought, well, this is interesting. What percentage of people listen to the last episode? You may know the answer to that. I had no idea. But when we looked into that, it’s a very small portion of the audience listens to the last episode, listens to all episodes, including the last one. And so, what also stunned me was hearing feedback from educated and bright people in the Netherlands.
Who consumed this pod – this series of podcasts – and believed everything that was told to them by Pieter van Os and the NRC, probably because of the credibility of the NRC, they believed everything, you know? And they were angry at us. And they were angry with the family of claimants. And this stimulated a lot of anger and antisemitism and hatred. And this was and this was painful for everybody. But then we thought, you know what, let’s take a look closer at Pieter van Os and look into who his family was. And we learned that Pieter’s father was Henk. And Henk van Os had been the director for several years of the number one museum in the Netherlands, the Rijksmuseum.
And museums in the Netherlands are, generally speaking, vehemently opposed to restitution. But we looked further into Henk van Os, and he made very similar statements that Pieter van Os, his loyal son, made about the Lewenstein family. Henk van Os made the same statements about the Goudstikker family, who ironically had many of their looted paintings also sold at the October 8th and October 9th, 1940 auction in the Netherlands. You know, one of the first major Nazi auctions, while the country’s, you know, occupied by the Nazis. And here he is saying, these Goudstikker claimants, they don’t like art. They don’t deserve art. They’re only greedy. And you get all the antisemitic undertones with all of that. And so that was really interesting to see and so we you know, we clearly can see now that the motives of Pieter van Os, besides his, you know, the apparent motives of his actions, are probably to generate hostility, to misinform readers and viewers of the NRC and listeners of the podcasts and to maybe enhance his own ego I don’t know but and he – and then to add insult to injury with that our attorney wrote to the ombudswoman of the NRC and said, You know, here we have your journalist who decided to ignore the objective evidence that was outlined in the detailed study of the German Advisory Commission.
And here we’ve listed more than a hundred errors that he made in his series of podcasts and we demand that you remove those podcasts or correct those hundred errors. And she basically took the tone, and I’m going by recollection, but she dismissed the accusations. She suggested that our company had simply filed a lawsuit to put pressure on them. And she seemed to have sided with Pieter that there was no need to look at that objective evidence. And this is the ombudswoman who’s responsible for being objective. And she actually drew people’s attention to encouraging them to listen to the podcasts, which again was a further offense. And then Pieter decided to write another article just a few weeks ago again commenting – suggesting that the painting was never looted. So that was very painful to go through that. And it and we’re still going through that. And so, we’re appealing that decision. And so that’s a very long answer. I’m sorry to your very short question.
Uri: Yeah. So, you told us about the HEAR Act, which was initially introduced in 2016, and then made permanent earlier this year. And it seems like maybe the EU needs to adopt something similar, especially if the Dutch wanna have a test where they can balance the museum’s desire against the claimant’s desire, which seems kind of absurd, but I think we do sort of understand how a country gets to that point. What maybe is a little bit harder to understand is what does it take to overcome that mindset. Because, you know, for better or for worse, the Holocaust is fading from, you know, living memory. And so, when the restitution might mean, you know, heirs that never knew the people or the painting, you have to get a you have to get over those arguments, right?
The legalistic things rather than the merits. And I know this means a lot to you. One, you’ve made it your life work, but I think you’ve also helped families put down the Stolpersteine, the little memorial stones. So, I guess my question is what does get countries to overcome that mindset and how they address this thing? And does this ever end? Is someone still doing this work in say 2060?
James Palmer: Yeah, it’s a good question. I mean, I think I mean there have been naturally a lot of terrible things that happened in the history of men and women, you know, on this planet. But when you talk about misappropriation of property, this is the one largest single, you know, act, you know, that was designed to deprive people mostly Jewish people, some others who were persecuted during the Holocaust, of their property and of their cultural identity. And so those special circumstances warrant, in my opinion, special treatment that as long as that property is in the hands of people that it shouldn’t be, it should be restituted. And keep in mind the reality of the situation is that it’s very complex work, very complex research.
It takes years to often to perfect and to complete. And there have been many obstacles, some of them naturally occurring, some of them psychological, you know, from Survivor Syndrome to victims of the Holocaust trying to survive after the war, to access to information being blocked still today, last year, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years ago. So, there are special circumstances here at play that continue to be at play. And it’s a special situation that risk that warrants special treatment. So that would be my answer to that question.
Uri: Okay. I know you’ve got lots of works you’d love to help families get back, say in Poland, Greece, the States, the Netherlands, France. Which of those countries has been like hardest to work with or within? And I’m sure you also have a few what we’ll call white whales. I don’t expect you to say which and put people on notice. But what would make one into that status for you?
James Palmer: Well, I mean Russia is a good example of a country that’s very difficult to deal with. I think they’re at one end of the spectrum. And then further along that spectrum would be Poland, for example, where it’s very difficult, but probably more plausible than Russia. Poland’s going through some significant changes, you know, as we speak. You know, we have been successful in Poland, but it’s been very challenging. And we continue to work on that. Again, much more challenging than in many other countries. I think the Netherlands has come a long way to its credit. You can imagine how painful it was to be, you know, put in the spotlight and being called out on what they were doing with this balance of interest test.
And so, I give them credit, you know, to evolving in the right way. I think Germany’s come a long way, although I believe there are thousands of artworks and private residences that are taking a long time to access. Switzerland has come a long way. They just put their restitution body together. And keep in mind that, you know, your question sort of referred to EU law, but a lot of these matters refer to not only moral issues but the development and evolution, if you will, of the adjudication bodies in these different countries. So, there used to be just five or six. Now there’s I think Switzerland was just recently added, part of Belgium is introducing a new restitution body.
Italy’s introducing a new restitution body. So, you can see this is just in the last year or so, there’s still a lot to be done. I mean a lot to be done. And we’re keeping busy with this. And people are grateful, you know, whether they’re grandchildren or great nieces or nephews, they are grateful. And we take great joy in doing what we do. We have, you know, we’re grateful that we have work that’s very challenging and meaningful and we’re grateful to our clients who have faith in us. And you know, and we can, you know, withstand some of these I guess accusations. You know, you mentioned the word Holocaust hustler, and just so you are clear on this, this was asserted by David Nahmad’s lawyer, Richard Golub. And it was interesting because you know we launched that lawsuit for the Modigliani painting, the Seated Man with a Cane by Amedeo Modigliani.
And I think that was back in 2011. And in 2016, I believe it was – seems to be a lot going on in 2016 – In 2016, I think it was, you might be aware, you might recall that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists made public eleven and a half million documents about offshore entities – exactly.
Uri: Yeah, the Panama Papers, I think.
James Palmer: The Panama Papers. You got it. In one of or in a few of those documents it referred to the International Art Center, and of David Nahmad and his family. And after David Nahmad had tried to get people to believe that he wasn’t – didn’t have anything to do with possession of the painting, it appears that he left out the part that he was controlling the International Art Center, an offshore vehicle, which was, he claimed, owning the painting. So, he thought and as a result of this publication of these millions of documents there was a lot of interest, a lot of journalists, no podcasters, but a lot of journalists back in 2016, wrote all kinds of stories.
And so, it appears that David Nahmad and his lawyer, Dick Golub came to the conclusion that Mondex and James Palmer were responsible for those stories. And that was not the case. So, they decided to hire a public a PR firm, that’s my understanding, either David Nahmad or David Nahmad and his lawyer, decided to hire a public relations company and attack James Palmer and attack Mondex. And so, they engaged a journalist at the New York Post to refer to me as a Holocaust hustler. They also engaged journalists in Switzerland and France, and I believe others in America to defame our company to accuse us of all kinds of things from you know not being able to do proper research to being aggressive and you know one of the things that we are not is we’re not aggressive – we are very determined, we are very steadfast but we are not aggressive but you know if you, I mean it looks like he confused someone who is – a team of people who are – not giving up and who focus on facts and who focused on it who focused on objective evidence.
Maybe he thinks that’s aggressive. But so, he did his best – they did their best, it appears, to discredit us. And so that again was painful, but it’s part of the pain I think that we have to endure to do this work and to do it properly. And to do it to the extent where we succeed with a very, very high success rate once we make a claim.
Uri: I’m sorry you had to go through the painful experience, but I’m happy that you’re there pursuing justice for these people. And I mean, this might be the only measure of justice the families get at all. So, kudos to you for taking it on.
James Palmer: Well thank you, Uri.
Uri: Is there anything that we didn’t get to that you might want to touch on before we wrap up?
James Palmer: I suppose that you know I would say to listeners and to judges of any capacity, to focus on objective evidence, to focus on facts and don’t believe everything you hear and really to focus on facts, which is what we have to do as a research organization and it carries us a great way to understanding. Yeah, and so the struggle and the work that we are very fortunate to be engaged in it continues. And yeah, and we’re proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish and we think that we have a great deal more and I suppose the thing that I really need to say is that often people read about my name and they read about the company, but there’s a huge team behind us, you know.
And I mentioned, you know, about this twenty s – group of twenty seven really passionate and dedicated group of people who work tirelessly in many different countries and in different languages, and our legal team. And our legal team is incredible. I mean, the things that they do, working, you know, into the wee hours and working on weekends and, you know, meeting deadlines and addressing you know the injustice that we often face. And now, you know, I can tell you that in one of our cases, you know, the HEAR Act is being challenged about its constitutionality and so we have the support in that case. The claimants have the support of the US government and a number of senators have come up to lend their support.
So, we feel appreciated and our work is appreciated and respected and loved. And if any defendants, I mean if they put themselves in a position to be a defendant, that’s probably a mistake right away. And I think we’ve seen over the last couple decades this evolution of claimants, or I should not say claimants, but possessors, whether they’re museums or institutions or individuals, they’re being more responsive now. They’re being more responsible. And they’re doing more often than not, they’re doing the right thing. And I think the kind of behavior that we see you know, exhibited, for example, by the Met Museum versus the complete, you know, different position and reaction that we saw with the Art Institute of Chicago. I think that’s a great example of the transition and evolution that we’re experiencing today.
Uri: Excellent. I’m glad it seems somewhat hopeful, even though it is obviously very tedious and draining, but very worthwhile. James, thank you so much. That’s James Palmer, the founder of Mondex, which you can read more about their cases at mondexcorp.com. You’ve been listening to Between Us, you can find the show at atlantaisrael.org/podcast. Thank you for listening.
This is the transcript of James Palmer’s conversation on Between Us, the podcast of the Atlanta Israel Coalition. Full episode through this link: Listen to the full episode on Between Us