Land, Ownership, and Luck

I think I never fully understood why land property was always dealt with differently from other kinds of property. Of course, buying houses and such is always more expensive than buying many other things, but still... to actually have a different set of laws to deal with those things?
I think that, in a way, the latest concerns about Arab and Jewish settlement and demolition plans in Jerusalem make me understand that difference a bit better.
East Jerusalem has been subject to four different legal regimes in the past century. First Ottoman, then British, later Jordanian (in 1948) and lastly Israeli (as a result of the 1967 war). In '48, the Jewish population of East Jerusalem fled to the western side of the city. In '67, the Arab population did the same, fleeing to other Arab cities in the West Bank and neighboring states. While those people could, generally speaking, take most of their belongings with them one thing always stayed behind - real estate. That's the one thing no one can carry with them. So, when everything you own usually goes with you and is subject to the same legal regime you are subject to - that's categorically not the case with the land that you own.
In the specific case of Jerusalem, both Jordan and Israel have laws that nationalize deserted land. When Jews left their land behind in 1948, Jordan nationalized them and gave them to Palestinian new residents. After the 1967 war, when Israel took over East Jerusalem it applied an exactly similar law on the property that was now deserted and, recently, gave back the property nationalized by Jordan to its original Jewish owners.
I'm sure this isn't how real estate law developed, or their historic justification. But this makes it clear to what extent owning land is different from owning other kinds of property. Ownership is a result of legal schemes. Look at the same house through the eyes of one legal system - it belongs to one person. Look at it through the eyes of another - it belongs to someone else. Unlike other movable property, the owner of land has so little control on what's happening to his or her property, cannot protect it, and cannot take it with them. Most of the time, we don't realize it. Most places are subject just to one legal regime - not only at one time but even through (at least recent) history. Only in certain cases, some unfortunate people see behind this veil of state-law connection. Some property has the bad luck of being in those place where one legal system chases another. In those cases remain the same, and so do the houses, but not the links tying them together.

Muzzle the Watchdog

In the past few weeks the Israeli media has filled with obscure hints to the fact that something is going on. It wasn't clear what exactly that thing is, but if you knew how to read between the lines it was clear that something important has happened and that there's a gag order on it. Soon after, those bloggers who always know what's going on started letting out the details - a certain journalist was arrested in connection to some leak of army secrets. A few more weeks passed and the case was published in international media. After that, the gag order was lifted and most of the story exploded in Israeli media as well.
Gag orders are given by courts all around the world, all the time. What was so special about this one is that it involved journalists (which made it interesting for other journalists to talk about), and that the acts it referred to are illegal-but-maybe-moral (depending on your perspective, I guess). Either way, because it was easy to see how the story unfolded, there are two things to be said about it:
1. If 10 years ago a gag order would have prevented flow of information, it seems that now what it does is direct the flow of information in a way that gives room to unofficial and independent sources. Rather than looking at the leading newspapers (which are usually the main sources of information for most), people looked for information in blogs, indi-media websites, and social networks. Those website, that usually target only a very small audience, suddenly got a place on front stage. A cynic would say that in this sense, gag orders are actually the most democratic tool of the government to control the media. Thank god I'm not a cynic.
2. The specific gag order, as given by the magistrates court, did not only suppress the details of the affair, but also the fact that there is a gag order in effect. Official media could not even mention the fact that they are stopped from reporting something. It seems that this is the most outrageous part about the whole thing, since this part of the gag order does not even allow the public to evaluate the way media is treated by the authorities. Sometimes, there could be good reasons to muzzle the watchdog. But putting it to sleep without telling the owner is hardly justifiable.