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.

Example Input: Charlie Hebdo: 'Us or them'. In the face of terrible deaths, at a time when we are so destructively polarised , this must be said bold and up front and repeatedly : No cartoonist deserves to be killed, ever . No innocent person shopping for kosher food deserves to be terrorised and murdered , either . All of those tragic deaths in France last week, including those of a policeman and policewoman, and numbering 17 in total, all of them are horrendous and incomprehensible . In the face of this terrible killing spree in France, at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and then at a kosher supermarket, the overwhelming reaction is revulsion . But at the same time, there's a need to respond in other ways as well, to frame a discussion that can prevent this tragedy leading to even more tragedies, or being spun out to lash out at other innocent people . And here is the trouble with the backlash that has already begun, and the demands that have being made in the name of "solidarity" . France today stages a unity march, an attempt to help heal a wounded nation, amidst a much wider discussion of the need to stand together in the face of terror . But within that discussion, there has been a distinct fundamentalism - for example, in the insistence that to support Charlie Hedbo's right to publish, we must reprint and replicate their work . It's an unnecessary conflation of two things: support for the right to do something and actually doing the thing . It should, of course, be possible to express disgust at the murders fully, without having to endorse certain types of offensiveness . And the French magazine, while broad-spectrum in its religious targets, has undeniably focused its gaze on France's Muslim minority in a racist manner, in recent years . There is, for media, a responsibility (the abrogation of which clearly does not invite murder) to not be tone deaf about the environments we live in: about ignored hierarchies of control; about powerless minorities and colonial heritage and migration and foreign policy; about how things feel when you are stigmatised, marginalised and scapegoated; about what it's like when you don't have a voice or much representation in the mainstream ; and when the majority culture insists that equality and liberty await all those who just learn to be more like the majority . If we don't create the space to say these things without casting those that do so as fanatical supporters of murder , then what is this limitless freedom of expression we keep insisting we are firmly on the side of? The demand that we all respond in a mass, uniform way also makes a basic error about how unity works - which is to forget that it can only survive if there are spaces between us ; solidarity and common ground take hold because of the existence of a spectrum in thought and experience, and not despite these things . Deadly terrorism seeks to stamp out the possibility of difference  - which is why, in condemning outright those atrocities in France, we need also to keep insisting on and cherishing our diversity . Meanwhile, equally fundamentalist is the predictable casting of blame at Muslims and their "backward" culture, painting this as a "clash of civilisations" and insisting that all Muslims repeatedly apologise for the slaughters in France . The now routine insistence that all Muslims apologise for all such atrocities has spawned a spoof Muslim iCondemn phone app for such eventualities - a curious development , since we have been led to believe that Muslims don't actually have a sense of humour . 'Civilised v barbarian' . The ridiculous "civilised v barbarian" argument has been skilfully taken apart by others - its false premises, hypocrisy and misguided superiority complex rigorously deconstructed . But there's grave danger in this sort of "us or them" thinking - not just in the physical attacks on mosques and Muslims in France , which have already begun and which are obviously bad enough . The danger in blaming Muslims for such atrocities is that we shirk any responsibility . And the harsh reality is that the French killings, just like previous terror atrocities in Britain, just like the European self-proclaimed jihadists that go and fight for the death cult Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant(ISIL), are all homegrown . We - not just Muslim society, but our societies - are accountable . We, not just the fanatics that recruit to and commit mindless terror, are bound up in the causes and the context in a way that makes it not just insulting but actively counterproductive to single out Muslims as bearing sole responsibility both for the crimes and for their prevention . If we don't own this terrible reality collectively , we won't be able to find a way out of it collectively , either - and that means we won't be able to find a way out of it at all .
Example Output: All of those tragic deaths in France last week, including those of a policeman and policewoman, and numbering 17 in total, all of them are horrendous and incomprehensible But there's grave danger in this sort of "us or them" thinking - not just in the physical attacks on mosques and Muslims in France

Example Input: Fearmongering in Sydney. Australians turning on their televisions Monday morning to watch breakfast and cooking shows were instead greeted with news channels beaming minute-to-minute fearmongering of the ongoing siege at a chocolate shop in Sydney . When customers and employees were taken hostage by a lone gunman , and a flag with"There is only one God" inscription in Arabic was held in the window , it was enough to hold the rest of the country hostage to their fears and TV screens . Should it be that way and what should an appropriate response look like? First ,  consider what this violent thug had designed our reaction to be . The site of the siege was likely no afterthought - located in the heart of the Sydney CBD and directly opposite a major television station, the shop had made it ideal for the media to report on . Streets were cordoned off , public transport diverted , and a strong contingent of police sent to the Opera House . All made for good visuals of the incident and terror in an otherwise peaceful city . Even the most left-leaning and progressive members of parliament, like Greens MP Adam Bandt, who have repeatedly defended the Muslim community from unjust discrimination and generalisation, tweeted to their followers in the first hours of the siege that it was "terrifying" . Was it really? Was it at all terrifying for you personally, Adam? If it was , I'd hate to know what the hostages experienced, including the two who were murdered . A strike in the public's dark . For once, Prime Minister Tony Abbott had a more mature response than his colleagues on the opposite side . Such a situation can "scare people out of being themselves", he said in his first press briefing, before urging all Australians to go about their business as usual . Although he told the public to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the authorities , he said so with calm and caution . Vitally, he avoided using the t-word at this early stage, or any formulation thereof . No doubt we have since learnt a lot more about this deranged outsider and his motives , and it is clear he had terrorist intent . His website, which was shut down during the final hours of the siege, had a message dated December 14, which described why Muslims "fight against the oppression and terrorism" of the US and its allies, including the UK and Australia . The rampant speculation before this was unnecessary and unhelpful, however , and letting the siege sow fear, enough so to publicly describe it as "terrifying", was handing a victory to an extremist . With the hot Australian summer setting in, many people's minds turn to beer, barbeques, family, and Christmas presents, not the possibility of "politically motivated violence", as Abbott wisely phrased it . Intriguingly, Australians fear terrorism more than a foreign invasion, despite many believing we'd have no hope of fending off the latter and despite us never directly experiencing the former . Given the opportunity to attribute a complexly motivated act to terrorism , it's no wonder this all-too-easy escape mechanism which avoids rigorous thought or objective analysis was adopted en masse . The most noted incidents in Australia's experience of terrorism have been mostly foreign tragedies, like the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005, or the 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta . Although the September raids and arrests of suspected domestic terrorists in Sydney and Brisbane set a new landscape and brought the thought of an attack to our own shores , they merely raised the thought, not the authentic actuality . The raids sparked limited local backlash against peaceful Muslims at the time , and this was both unwarranted and unwanted . Though it only goes to further support my thesis ; Australians just aren't used to this sort of thing and thus are unpractised in their response . That said , it hasn't stopped thousands on social media to show solidarity with minorities through the #IllRideWithYou campaign . When the Abbott government raised the domestic terrorism threat level to high before the September raids , many local commentators criticised what they branded as political theatre (both before and after the arrests) . To consider this is to suggest an even baser type of political animal than is presently expected by even the most cynical of observers . Would any rational actor toy with people's lives for short-term political ends in what was an unimportant political week? What end does that even achieve? Plainly, none, and it is sensationally conspiratorialist to suggest otherwise . To protest against such raids and continue looking at them through a political lens was just as unwarranted and unwanted as the racial-profiling and racial- hatred which events like these have sparked . Terrorism isn't something that we should let foster, anywhere , and the public reactions to the raids were unjustifiably sceptical in comparison to the response to the Sydney siege . Even so ,  the authorities' heed for caution may have come too late for some . Slipshod media reports that the flag held in the shop window was an ISIL flag - when it was not- may have already fuelled the imaginations of too many . Whatever the outcome of the full investigation, one thing remains clear : This was a tragic learning experience for the Australian media, public, and politicians . Keep calm and carry on, though pay a thought or two to how we ought to respond to events like these in the future .
Example Output: Even the most left-leaning and progressive members of parliament, like Greens MP Adam Bandt, who have repeatedly defended the Muslim community from unjust discrimination and generalisation, tweeted to their followers in the first hours of the siege that it was "terrifying"

Example Input: The hapless, harmless Palestinian leader? January 15 marks a decade since Mahmoud Abbas became the Palestinian president , during which time the goals he claims to espouse not only remain unrealised, but are more remote than ever . He is still in office despite his term ending six years ago; the democratic process that brought him to power no longer in existence . He speaks of his people's human rights while his Palestinian Authority actively curtails them . He claims to champion their national rights while collaborating unconditionally with the country that denies them . Abbas' image as a hapless, harmless figure deflects from the cunning and ruthlessness of someone whose primary concern, like the Middle East's other autocrats, seems to be his longevity . The fact that he plays ball with the West and Israel somehow makes this okay . Where other Arab strongmen nurture an image of power to maintain it , he relies on being seen as an underdog . But this illusion, which has traditionally served Abbas well, no longer extends to his people . Many think he and the PA serve their own interests and those of Israel, rather than those of the Palestinians . According to a poll last month, 55 percent believe that the PA has become "a burden on the Palestinian people" . Regarding the presidency, Abbas has consistently lagged in opinion polls behind his Fatah colleague, Marwan Barghouti . Since Israel's last Gaza invasion, he also runs behind Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh . Is it mere coincidence, then, that Abbas has been lacklustre in campaigning for Barghouti's release from Israeli jail; or in pursuing and implementing national unity deals with Hamas that call for elections? Since the signing of the latest reconciliation agreement in April, Abbas has at various times threatened to end it, and has been openly adversarial towards Hamas . Elections that were due within six months never happened , so he remains unchallenged - this has gone largely unnoticed . The PA - which is meant to safeguard Palestinian rights- serially abuses them . Human Rights Watch has documented "police beatings and arbitrary arrests of demonstrators", "excessive force", "repressing critical news reporting and demonstrations", "suppressing dissenting views", and "serious rights abuses, including credible allegations of torture" , for which "no security officials were convicted" . As such, the PA is not only failing to curb Israeli abuses, but is busy perpetrating its own, all under Abbas' watch . The PA has garnered a reputation among Palestinians for managing the occupation rather than striving to end it . One way it does this is "security coordination" with Israel , which Abbas described last year as "sacred" despite the vast majority of Palestinians opposing it . Such coordination serves Israel by enabling it to subcontract its occupation, and serves the PA by helping it suppress internal dissent . It certainly does not benefit the Palestinian people . Abbas and his foreign minister have made grotesque assurances that as long as he is president, he will not allow an uprising against Israel . So the PA, which is supposed to be part of a national liberation struggle, is willing to put down an uprising by its own people against their subjugation . This is nothing short of betrayal . For more than 20 years, the PA has participated in a "peace process" that has greatly entrenched Israeli control . Abbas himself was an architect of the disastrous Oslo Accords . The occupied territories are now so colonised and fragmented that a viable Palestinian state is widely considered impossible . Yet ,  Abbas still wants to negotiate, despite Israel being clearly opposed to Palestinian self-determination . What, then, is the point of negotiating? Perhaps to preserve the privileged elites to which the PA and the "peace process" gave birth . After all ,  allegations of corruption and nepotism, including Abbas and his family, are nothing new . With the help of international aid, the PA is the largest employer of Palestinians, much like other autocracies that encourage public dependence on the state to avoid mass unrest . A power imbalance alone cannot explain Abbas' policy choices regarding Israel . He opposes armed resistance, and has gone to great lengths to disarm militants in the West Bank . However ,  he also opposes peaceful forms of resistance, including the increasingly effective Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement . Furthermore ,  it took the PA more than two years since Palestine's upgraded UN status to apply to join the International Criminal Court, despite repeated threats to do so amid constant Israeli provocations . That Abbas finally relented may not only, or necessarily, be about losing patience with Israel, but about assuaging mounting Palestinian anger at his procrastination in applying to the ICC . Meanwhile, he says he will keep pushing for a UN Security Council resolution calling for a deadline to end Israel's occupation , despite the certainty of repeated failure by US veto . Abbas seems to be attempting a balancing act . He wants to prove to Israel, and his western and Arab backers, that he is their best Palestinian partner, safe in the knowledge that they will not accept Hamas rule, but mindful not to suffer the same fate as Yasser Arafat once he was no longer deemed useful or reliable . However ,  his recent, uncharacteristic defiance against Israel reflects a need to stop his flagging domestic popularity turning into an uprising against him and the PA . Abbas has nothing to show his people after 10 years as president, and at least another decade as part of the "peace process" . He remains in office because of, not despite, Israel's occupation and Palestinian disunity .
Example Output:
January 15 marks a decade since Mahmoud Abbas became the Palestinian president during which time the goals he claims to espouse not only remain unrealised, but are more remote than ever

