Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

[EX Q]: A Greek euro exit would hurt Europe - but not as much as it would hurt Greece. When the people of Greece go to the polls on 25 January, they will face some fairly fundamental choices . Contrary to what many politicians and commentators would have you believe, this election is not about whether Greeks want to stay in the euro - a majority clearly wants to . The real question is whether this latest turn in the drama will finally force Greek politicians to act in their country's long-term interest . Opinion polls suggest that Greek voters oscillate between anger and fear: anger about the enormous costs they have had to bear in the course of the adjustment programme; and fear of what would happen if Alexis Tsipras, head of the hard-left Syriza movement that still leads in the polls, tries to force through another cut in Greece's international debt . In the last debt restructuring in 2012, the creditors already promised to help Greece reduce its debt to more sustainable levels by 2020 - provided Athens continues to improve its budget . The Greeks have a democratic right to elect a leader who wants to tear up this agreement ; just as Germans, Dutch, Finns and others have a right to elect governments that insist on such deals being adhered to . Although Tsipras says he does not want to leave the euro , the resulting showdown could force Greece out of the single currency . Today, the spectre of "Grexit" is more threatening to the Greeks than to the rest of Europe . Reforms in Spain, Portugal and Ireland have made these countries more resilient . International rescue funds and the European Central Bank stand ready to help in case panic should nevertheless spread . Five out of Germany's eight leading economic research institutes think the eurozone could now cope with a Greek exit . This does not mean, however, that Germany or the other eurozone countries want Greece to leave . Even if contagion was limited, another worsening of the eurozone crisis would undermine confidence, stunt the region's fragile recovery and make Europe's leaders - many of whom have declared the crisis over- look inept . The political and economic consequences for other European countries would be severe . Therefore , even if the rest of Europe does not want to be blackmailed , it will likely be ready to talk . The new Greek government, whether it is led by the incumbent premier Antonis Samaras, Tsipras, or a new coalition, could reasonably demand a new grand bargain under which the ECB-IMF-EC troika of lenders agrees to revisit the debt issue while the Greek government promises to make the economy fit for the future . Economic reform, however, is hardly what Greek politicians are talking about in this election campaign . Greek voters face the unenviable choice between re- electing the mainstream politicians who landed Greece in its current mess in the first place, or voting for Tsipras or other populists who make unrealistic promises of higher wages and more security . The trouble is not that Tsipras is radical ; it is that he is not radical enough . By promising state handouts to voters and protection for vested interests, he is perpetuating the dysfunctional system that plunged Greece into crisis . Over the past few years, the ruling coalition between the two established parties has tried a tricky balancing act of preserving the system of bureaucratic cronyism that since the 1970s they have helped to build, and modernising Greece's state and economy , as promised to international lenders . The result was an often agonisingly slow process of to and fro, with troika officials regularly departing in frustration about Greek foot-dragging . It is not only the troika's emphasis on austerity that has caused the Greek people so much pain . As important was that huge adjustments were foisted upon an extraordinarily rigid economy . Despite much effort to open up mollycoddled sectors since 2010, Greece is still one of Europe's most overregulated economies . Sluggish bureaucracies and exaggerated form-filling are the main reason Greece's exports have not rebounded like those of Spain, Portugal and Ireland . The absence of a reliable land registry is holding back investment . An unreformed social security system still benefits better-off households more than the destitute . While the tax burden on ordinary people has risen , wealthy individuals and companies can still often evade their dues . And wages in the public sector have fallen - but nowhere near as fast as those in the private sector, despite starting from a much higher level . Greek politicians must get serious about removing the shackles from the economy . Economists think the benefits of structural reforms could materialise quickly in Greece's inefficient economy, and would be substantial . The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that Greek businesses could save hundreds of millions of euros a year if the government scrapped burdensome regulations . The Greek thinktank IOBE calculates that improvements to the business and investment environment could lift GDP by more than 2% in just two years , while steps to increase competition in industries and services would have an even bigger impact . Greece has started building a sounder economy on the wreckage of a public sector bubble and a strangulated private sector . The costs have been exorbitant . It would be a real Greek tragedy if the country's next government squandered the potential gains and reversed the process .
[EX A]: Contrary to what many politicians and commentators would have you believe, this election is not about whether Greeks want to stay in the euro The real question is whether this latest turn in the drama will finally force Greek politicians to act in their country's long-term interest

[EX Q]: What freedom of speech? The photos of 40 of the world's government leaders marching arm-in-arm along a Paris boulevard on Sunday with the president of the United States not among them was a provocative image that has fomented much debate . The march was, of course, in direct response to the murderous attacks on workers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by a pair of brothers named Kouachi, and on shoppers at a Paris kosher supermarket by one of the brothers' comrades . The debate has been about whether President Obama should have been at the march . The march was billed as a defense of freedom of speech in the West ; yet it hardly could have been held in a less free speech-friendly Western environment , and the debate over Obama's absence misses the point . In the post-World War II era, French governments have adopted a policy advanced upon them nearly 100 years ago by Woodrow Wilson . He pioneered the modern idea that countries' constitutions don't limit governments; they unleash them . Thus , even though the French Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, French governments treat speech as a gift from the government, not as a natural right of all persons , as our Constitution does . The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal . When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down -- permanently . The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources . This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears . It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred . When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims . It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel . Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech . That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil . So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God ; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state . Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech . Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine? And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion . You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government . This past weekend, millions of folks in France wore buttons and headbands that proclaimed in French:"I am Charlie Hebdo." Those whose buttons proclaimed"I am not Charlie Hebdo" were asked by the police to remove them . Those who wore buttons that proclaimed, either satirically or hatefully,"I am Kouachi" were arrested . Arrested for speech at a march in support of free speech? Yes . What's going on here? What's going on in France, and what might be the future in America, is the government defending the speech with which it agrees and punishing the speech with which it disagrees . What's going on is the assault by some in radical Islam not on speech, but on vulnerable innocents in their everyday lives in order to intimidate their governments . What's going on is the deployment of 90,000 French troops to catch and kill three murderers because the government does not trust the local police to use guns to keep the streets safe or private persons to use guns to defend their own lives . Why do some in radical Islam kill innocents in the West in order to affect the policies of Western governments? Might it be because the fruitless Western invasion of Iraq killed 650,000 persons, most of whom were innocent civilians? Might it be because that invasion brought al-Qaida to the region and spawned ISIS? Might it be because Obama has killed more innocent civilians in the Middle East with his drones than were killed by the planes in the U.S  on 9/11? Might it be because our spies are listening to us, rather than to those who pose real dangers? What does all this have to do with freedom of speech? Nothing -- unless you believe the French government .
[EX A]: The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal

[EX Q]: Palestine's wasted time at the UN. Even by the standards of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Palestinian Authority's just-thwarted attempt at a UN Security Council resolution was a spectacular waste of time, and needlessly handed Israel a symbolic diplomatic victory . The draft - which called for peace with Israel within a year, and an end to the occupation by 2017- fell one yes vote short of the minimum nine required in the 15-member Council . Five countries abstained , and two - the US and Australia - voted no . Draft resolutions are usually preceded by consultations with Council members, so whoever submits them knows, beforehand, which way the vote will go . This draft was no different . In fact ,  insufficient support among Council members was the initial reason given months ago by the PA for a delay in the vote . As such, it must have known prior to presenting the draft that it would fail , so why go through with it? In fact ,  why did the PA try to push through a resolution in the first place? Even if it mustered the minimum votes , the US would have used its veto , and the PA knew it . Not only have the Americans consistently scuppered any resolution that places even the slightest criticism or pressure on Israel , but Washington had been explicit about its intention to use its veto this time round if necessary . As such, it is puzzling that Jordan's UN Ambassador Dina Kawar, whose country submitted the draft with the backing of the PA and the Arab League, said she thought Council members should have had more time to discuss the proposal . What would be the point in the face of an assured American veto? The only way Washington would acquiesce was if the resolution called for an end to the Palestinian occupation of Israel . This makes PA President Mahmoud Abbas's recent statement that he had repeatedly postponed the resolution due to US pressure equally puzzling . Did he actually think anything he could say or do would lead to the US dropping such pressure, or that it would accept the draft that was presented? In any case, months of consultations and various reasons for delays only resulted in the continued watering down of the text . This led to widespread Palestinian condemnation, from the public and from every faction . Among the most prominent critics is the widely popular senior Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti , whose party dominates the PA and includes Abbas . Barghouti described the text as an "unjustified fallback which will adversely affect the Palestinian position" . Moreover ,  the draft was not put forward as a Chapter VII resolution , which would entail punitive measures for lack of compliance . As such , even if it was passed , Israel - which flatly condemned the PA's push from the outset- would be free to ignore it without consequence , as it has done with all the numerous Security Council resolutions over the decades . Indeed ,  the draft did not contain any wording that would cause Israel to worry . Given that the US veto shields Israel , and that existing resolutions are ignored with impunity , it is astounding that the PA had any faith left in the Council to attempt its latest futile exercise at statehood . Even the response of its UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour was telling in this regard ; "The Security Council has once again failed to uphold its charter duties to address this crises and to meaningfully contribute to a lasting solution in accordance with its own resolutions." It has long been clear that the UN is a highly unlikely place for Palestinians to seek justice , as the consistent wishes and support of the international community for their cause is held hostage by just one country . The very notion of Security Council vetoes makes the UN an inherently and woefully undemocratic institution . The irony is that in the case of Palestine, a democracy is to blame . The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, had the gall to say the resolution undermined efforts to "achieve two states for two people" . The entire point of the resolution was to create a state that the existing state is determined to deny . As such, one wonders if she even read the draft . It seems the mere mention of Israel automatically triggers an American veto . This whole months-long affair was an obvious exercise in futility , during which time Israel has further entrenched its occupation and colonisation of Palestine . The day after the resolution failed , Abbas signed a document requesting membership of the International Criminal Court . Given numerous previous threats to join the ICC, this is a welcome development . However ,  he should have done this the moment Palestine's upgraded status at the UN allowed it do so more than two years ago . Amid Israel's relentless colonisation and occupation, and after more than 20 years of fruitless negotiations, the Palestinians do not have the luxury of waiting indefinitely for statehood . As such, the PA must act with the necessary urgency and focus .
[EX A]:
Even by the standards of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Palestinian Authority's just-thwarted attempt at a UN Security Council resolution was a spectacular waste of time, and needlessly handed Israel a symbolic diplomatic victory The draft - which called for peace with Israel within a year, and an end to the occupation by 2017- fell one yes vote short of the minimum nine required in the 15-member Council