A serious analysis of the development of the effective economic growth will look at the development of the stable institutional structures and ones that have a degree of the corrective feedback to allow a balancing of the interests.
“Terrorist leaders” is a stupid non analysis - the performance of the South Africa under the first presidencies post-apartheid was very good - as the institutions were adopted and adapted well.
The comparative development of the various African countries following the independence has been in the serious economic study examining the internal frameworks.
The bad performances are also exmainable in the framework of the hand-over of the power and the degree to which the power excercised was extractive and if there were local domestic economic interests with an interest in the economic investment versus the rent extractions.
The case of the Cote d’Ivoire contre the Guineau for example - the bad performance for the last or a Nigeria has not one thing to do with “terrorists” leaders since there is no case of revolutionary struggle for the decolonization but the bad incentives in the economic order. The CdI on the other hand had the positive economic system for the interest in the productive reinvestment. Botswana is a similar case.
Of course for the Israel, the human capital transfer of a large component of the population with both a certain degree of the economic wealth capital and connectoins as well as the human capital and networks to well put into work the access to the investment capital networks well developed and accessible via the ethnic routes in a very time tested fashion for the case of immigration, this is a very powerful boost.
It is of course nonsense to compare this to populations under the military occupation and subject to the expropriation or the security risk - it is like comparing the ability of the coloured south africa to accumulate capital with the English south african immigrant…