First of all:

For example, PLO undermined the fact that half of the war was to be waged in media. It was crucial to earn the sympathies of the American public, which Arafat never paid much heed to, according to Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said and others.

This is a very questionable assertion. Arafat was incredibly aware of the public sympathy angle of conflict. This was part of why the international campaign of plane hijackings and the like was eventually abandoned for more subtle actions.

PLO leaders agreed to the Oslo accords which essentially served the interest of the Israel and curbed the Palestinians' freedom of movement. Palestine gained no true autonomy from the accords and life became harder for the civilians.

This, too, is a very questionable assertion. The agreement gave Palestinians their own first self-governance of any kind in history. It gave them control over civil and security affairs in many respects in Areas A and B of the West Bank, no longer relying on Israel for building permits, zoning, and also providing them with their own ability to tax and spend on their domestic population. Freedom of movement, rather than being entirely subject to Israel's authority, would not be restricted within Area A in the same fashion following the Accords. There are significant changes that were made, and stating simply that all they did was "serve the interest of Israel" is incorrect. Indeed, Israel came to struggle with how to deal with Oslo Accords provisions in light of the outbreak of the Second Intifada, and the restrictions it faced under those treaties.

Whether Dennis Ross is not-credible, which I do not believe really invalidates the point very much, is not determinative. The article you are referring to sources American accountants who combed through Arafat's books, and Ross is only one of many sources who confirms that this system of patronage and corruption is well-known.

That does, in fact, hold true in other sources as well, beyond those that accountants have already confirmed in that story and others. I cannot get into things near the end of his life, beyond 2001, but his corruption was well-understood long before then. That includes at a popular level. Some examples of popular belief:

• Poll, July 2000, shows 76% believe corruption exists in Palestinian Authority institutions, and 53.8% think it will increase in the future.

• Poll, July 2001, shows 83.4% believe corruption exists in Palestinian Authority institutions, and 49.1% think it will increase, while 8.3% think it will remain as it is, and 33.6% think it will decrease.

• Poll, December 2001, shows 73.7% believe corruption exists, 48.7% think it will increase, 11.3% think it will remain as it is, and 30.1% think it will decrease.

Arafat's popularity was, at times, fluctuating with these popular perceptions. But was the public right?

Well, besides the accountants and personal testimonies of those who dealt with him, others pointed out widespread corruption in the Palestinian Authority that could not be denied, and which frankly ends where the buck stops: with Arafat as leader. As noted in Yasir Arafat by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, a 1999 EU-funded report found corruption and noted that "Not to reform is not an option", but Arafat's response was to appoint a committee (with some members who themselves had been accused of corruption) to investigate, which did not accomplish or put out any product.

Others have noted that Arafat's version of corruption was, in fact, as Dennis Ross described it. It wasn't usually or always luxuries for himself—as Palestinian journalist Said Aburish described it in Arafat, "[t]he man himself is clean"—it was a type of corruption where "he follows the time-honoured methods of an Arab tribal chief, which includes buying others."

I think Aburish is a bit flip here; Arafat certainly lived quite well, and saved quite a bit of money for himself. But more than that, Arafat maintained his stranglehold on power via corruption as well, through doling out money and jobs that required little to no work and didn't need to exist as favors to those who were loyal. This bloated the Palestinian bureaucracy, and as Aburish put it, "This system is under the direction of a man who does not understand economics and who adheres to a tribal system of giving and receiving", which encouraged others below him to do the same.

There is a bit of a mistake, I'd argue, among those who think Arafat took no indulgence for himself or his family. Audits by the IMF found that Arafat had diverted $900 million of Palestinian Authority revenue to private bank accounts from 1995-2000. He diverted tax revenue from the gas taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, and other revenue, into accounts in Israeli banks, which he used to invest at home and abroad. The Palestinian Authority claimed it was able to reclaim $700 million of that, and said the remaining $200 million might have been due to a decline in the investments' value, but that remains unclear. After all, it appears that millions of dollars were paid to Yasser Arafat's wife, but there have been no revelations as to how or where that money came from. French investigators launched a money laundering investigation, but I have been unable to find any results.

All of which is to say that there is no doubt that Arafat was personally corrupt, the question is only the extent, and whether he benefited in loyalty and a comfortable life, or if he benefited by also enriching his family.