But a recently leaked report shows that the ‘riveting’ Hollywood account of the ‘greatest manhunt of all time’ was hardly as glamorous as it was made to be. In fact, if it were not for the ‘shocking state of affairs’ in Pakistan itself, where local governance had ‘completely collapsed’, the raid would have been yet another botched attempt at killing a man that had been using primitive means – for example a ‘cowboy hat’  to evade drones –  as he had managed to survive for nearly nine years.

The 337-page report was the outcome of a thorough, but secret investigation by a commission set up by the Pakistan government following the US raid. It mainly aimed at answering the question of  how US forces, a supposed ally, infiltrated Pakistani airspace, killing Bin Laden and three Pakistanis, and then hovered away undetected. The answer had little to do with the prowess of the US military whose behavior was viewed by the commission as that of a ‘criminal thug’. Instead, the answer lies in Pakistani authorities’ own failure, or as page 87 of the report describes as ‘Governance Implosion Syndrome’.

Reporting for Al Jazeera, AsadHashim summed up the commission’s findings: “Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s chief, was able to evade detection in Pakistan for nine years due to the ‘collective failure’ of the Pakistani state’s military and intelligence authorities, and ‘routine’ incompetence at every level of the civil governance structure.”

Without that ‘collective failure’, there could have been no American success, the kind that is turned into riveting movies generating exuberant amounts of money which feed into the myth of the infallibility of the US military.

The timing of the leaked report was pretty interesting as well. It appeared shortly after Edward Snowden, a US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked damning information of the very shady and illegal behavior by the US government pertaining to its global surveillance program. Hundreds of millions of people in the US and around the world have fallen victim to the NSA spying program, whether through their telephone records, or through the PRISM program that grants the spying agency direct access to stored Internet activity of nearly anyone, anywhere. It is “a global, ubiquitous surveillance system that has as its goal the elimination of privacy worldwide”, wrote Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian.

Even EU offices were bugged by the US, according to the leaked information. If America’s closest allies were bugged, then no one is safe. The Brazilian newspaper O Globo revealed in reports, based on information provided by Snowden that the US had tapped into telecoms infrastructure in Brazil to acquire massive volumes of communications and to spy on governments throughout the region.

While Al Jazeera’s leak translated into media debates regarding Pakistan’s own failures and its odd alliance with the US – which unabashedly continues to violate the country’s sovereignty – Snowden’s leaks are generating a global debate regarding the US’s persistent attempts at global meddling and domination despite its repeated setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its diminishing, once unchallenged role as a superpower.

While corporate US media continue to toe the line by doing everything in their power to focus on the least relevant parts of the Snowden story, US government apologists are trying to soften the blow. Jim Lewis, a former intelligence official – now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington – had this to stay, according to the Financial Times: “Great powers all engage in espionage. That includes China, Russia and the US. It’s not war, it’s not an attack, it’s not use of force, it’s not even coercion.”

Although there is an element of truth in Lewis’ remarks, there is no denial that the extent of that spying can also tell us a great deal about the nature of the spy and the use of the information. When the victims are hundreds of millions of people from every country in the world, then one cannot help but object to the illegality and magnitude of the act.

One knows that it’s not your everyday spying practice when Cristina Fernández, president of Argentina says, “It sends chills up my spine when we learn they are spying on all of us through their intelligence services in Brazil.”

Not even the most paranoid amongst us would have imagined the extent of the US government’s violation of the very privacy laws that itself helped draft, promote and swore to protect. The Snowden leak revealed aspects of the NSA’s unwarranted practices, but what else is still being concealed? And what is the ultimate goal of the US government when it spies potentially on every citizen and every government?

In some parts of the world, the spying scandal raised the above questions and more. “The revelations have revived a narrative about the dangers of a world dominated by an untrustworthy superpower that had been dormant as debate raged instead about American decline,” wrote Geoff Dyer in Washington.

But should the debate shift away from the palpable decline to something else? Hardly, as the supposedly gutsy raid that killed Bin Laden should by no means contribute to the Hollywood-fed myth of the infallibility of the US military. Global surveillance is merely an indication that President Barack Obama – as a representation of the US ruling class – was never sincere as he attempted to woo the world with an image of a more gentle and peaceful American government. The Bin Laden raid, per the conclusions of the Pakistani commission, told of a sorry state of affairs that afflicted all aspects of government and military, and how it was underhandedly used by the US to carry out its own policy agendas, even at the expense of a supposed ally. It is hard to believe that any government can genuinely trust the US administration after all of this.

Ramzy Baroud, a widely published and translated author, an internationally-syndicated columnist, the editor of PalestineChronicle.com

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in particular, are heavily dependent on their Egyptian neighbors. Six years of an Israeli siege, originally imposed to punish Palestinians for electing Hamas in an election viewed widely as transparent and fair, has culminated into a drama with international dimensions. This drama of course involved the Palestinians, but also Israel’s traditional benefactors – lead, as always, by the United States — Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and more. Aside from the vicious nature of a siege imposed to punish a civilian population for making democratic choices, the siege has morphed to acquire multiple meanings. On one hand, it further cemented the division of Palestinian political elites, as the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) invested in ensuring the isolation of its Hamas political opponents. Notably, this took place after their brief but bloody encounters in Gaza in 2007. On the other hand, the siege positioned Hamas, whose survival was at stake, forcefully in a regional camp that involved Iran, Syria and the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah.

The last development in particular was exploited by Israel in every way possible and certainly without much context. It subsequently attacked Gaza at will, killing and wounding thousands in the course of few years, in the name of fighting Middle Eastern radicals hell-bent on erasing Israel off the map.

Under ousted President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt served as a buffer zone for Israel and the US to isolate Hamas from the rest of the world. The Egyptian dictator also had his own reasons for isolating Gaza. Any success in Mubarak’s neighborhood for the Islamists, Palestinians or others, would have constituted a threat and would have emboldened Egypt’s own Islamists to expect or strive for a greater role in Egypt’s undemocratic political institutions. Moreover, by tightening the noose, the Egyptian regime at the time had hoped to strengthen its role as a major player in the US Arab camp of ‘moderates’, in exchange for financial and political perks.

The Mubarak regime justified its incarceration of Gaza as its attempt at preserving Palestinian unity. The logic was flawed, but also clever. Under the auspices of the George W. Bush Administration and full Egyptian involvement, Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’ PA had reached an agreement on Movement and Access at the Gaza-Egypt border in November 2005. Expectedly, the agreement was tilted in every way necessary to reassure Israel regarding its many security concerns. A European mission — The European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) – was hurriedly deployed to monitor the border. Those listed by Israel as ‘suspects’ were either turned back or detained. It was an Israeli operation conducted by Palestinian and EU hands, with full Egyptian cooperation. The Mubarak regime argued that opening the border under Hamas’ authority was a violation of the agreement and would have further divided Palestinians.

When Palestinian militants clashed in Gaza in 2007, resulting in the removal of Abbas’ Fatah loyalists from the Strip’s entire security apparatus, Abbas found himself on the very camp urging greater clamp down at Gaza’s border, especially with Egypt. The latter enthusiastically obliged. As Mubarak erected a barrier and an underground wall around Gaza’s 12k border, Abbas cheered him on. “I support the wall,” he was quoted in the Guardian on Jan 31, 2010. “It is the Egyptians’ sovereign right in their own country. Legitimate supplies should be brought through the legal crossings.”

Abbas of course knew well that ‘legal crossings’ between Gaza and Israel were meant to ration food and fuel for Palestinians in the impoverished Gaza, in ways consistent with Israel’s position, as reiterated by the then influential Israeli official DovWeissglass: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” As for the other ‘legal crossing’ with Egypt, it had no commercial use, and it was heavily restricted even for individuals with health problems and students.

Following a lethal Israeli war on Gaza in 2008-9, known by its Israeli name Operation Cast Lead, Egypt moved even closer to the Israeli and PA position of choking Gaza. Gazans didn’t expect Mubarak to allow the seriously damaged place to completely recover from a one-sided war that killed over 1400 people, wounded thousands more, and damaged much of the place’s barely subsisting infrastructure. However, they did hope that Mubarak would open the border crossing on a more predictable basis; yet they watched in dismay as western security experts flocked to Egypt to fortify the Gaza border even further, before all of Gaza’s victims were accounted for.

Things have not always been this bad between Gaza and Egypt. In fact, in past decades, Gazans saw a strong connection, a bond even, with historical, political, cultural and religious dimensions that made them in some respects view Egypt as their respite, their last lines of defense. Historically, Egypt, which fought bitter wars against Israel, as other Arab countries conspired or capitulated, was in control of Gaza between 1948 and 1956, and again between 1957 and 1967. Even after the Israeli occupation of the remainder of historic Palestine, the political rapport was never severed until 1978 when President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords. A second phase of those accords put in place a ‘framework’ that would turn Gaza, along with the West Bank into autonomous regions.

While many in Egypt fully understand that finding a dignified and lasting resolution to the humiliation experienced by Palestinians in Gaza is a must, as they remain confined to a tiny space with no political horizon in sight, some media pundits are callously fanning the flames against the Gaza population and their government. They might’ve forgotten that it was Gazans that lead the celebration of Egypt’s January 25 Revolution and it was their resistance that kept the Israeli army at bay all of these years. Then, no one truly knew what sort of political outcome the revolution would usher in. Most Palestinians seemed happy that Egyptians were gasping the air of freedom, and truly believed that what was good for Egypt was as equally good for Palestine.

It is only obvious that neither Gazans nor their government have any vested interest in destabilizing Egypt. Palestinians understand that a strong, stable Egypt would have to immediately tend to some unfinished business, one being the Gaza siege, and the other balancing out Israel’s untamed military arrogance in that area. Yes, Gaza has its religious zealots like any other place, but conflating that with a Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood plot to undermine the army’s presence in Sinai is another unsubstantiated claim aimed solely at fomenting hate against Palestinians.

When media reports confirmed the release of seven kidnapped Egyptian soldiers in Sinai that were received by President Mohamed Morsi at the Almatha airport on May 22, it was the Palestinians in Gaza who echoed the cheers of their brethren in Egypt. Aside from genuine gratification of their release, Gazans were also happy to see thousands of stranded passengers being allowed to cross the border after having spent six days fighting the elements and sleeping on card board.

Palestinians in Gaza feel humiliated and are deeply frustrated for paying the price of Egypt’s protracted political turmoil. It is time that the Muslim Brotherhood government of Morsi do some serious soul-searching and understand that Palestinians will continue to dig tunnels to survive if Cairo doesn’t reach an agreement with the Gaza government that would allow for commercial exchange and humanitarian relief.

Yes, Egypt has every right to secure its border, but certainly not at the expense of a besieged people who are tired of being subjected to ‘collective punishment’ or being used as political fodder. Additionally, they are most certainly tired of digging tunnels to survive.

Ramzy Baroud, a widely published and translated author, an internationally-syndicated columnist, the editor of PalestineChronicle.com