Helen Thomas. . . Really That Evil?

There could hardly be a more patent example of misdirection by the media than the recent Helen Thomas "scandal," which has, it goes without saying, attracted its fair share of attention in the obsessively self-referential and predictably unoriginal blogosphere.
Perhaps the bloggers are not to be blamed; after all, the "professionals" in the mainstream media could only manage to disagree from one another inasmuch as some of them admitted to previously respecting her. Richard Cohen--who by all appearances also did not appreciate Thomas' earlier collaboration with Stephen Colbert--took the opportunity to give a history lesson entirely inapplicable to anything at all, other than a facile sense of irony.
Even the articles "in favor" of Helen Thomas can hardly avoid making lame excuses as to their reasoning for supporting her: James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute, says she 'misspoke,' and makes the seemingly poignant comment that other people have said things which people do not agree with; Ellen Ratner of FOXNews.com basically concurs, but unconsciously reveals by her ineloquent sentence fragments omething herself, remarking that "we all have said things -- or thought things -- about 'other' groups of people." Wow, those are some heavy guns to have on your side, Helen.
I should hardly need to point out that criticizing Israeli policies is hardly 'anti-Semitic,' though that is very likely what you will be labeled as if you choose to exercise your ostensible right to free speech. Remember, the question which was posed did not regard Thomas' opinion of "Jews," she was asked her opinion of the situation in Israel. And what is the situation in Israel? Currently, the top news items discussing the state of Israel are all connected with their embargo of the Gaza Strip since 2007; it's not a pretty situation, and in many countries there have been significant protests against what has been rightly considered an illegal policy (for instance, detaining aid vessels in international waters is strangely considered a crime in most circles).
The "scandalous" words Helen Thomas delivered were couched in a matter-of-fact declaration of the reality that the Palestinians are living in an occupied state. In fact, the explanations for why her statement was "racist" or "bigoted" are entirely convoluted; why is it racist to demand that an occupying group exit a country which was forced to accept them, and subsequently oppressed by progressively more violent and restrictive means? It is only racist if you assume that the words "Jews" and "Israel" are direct synonyms, which they are not.
Putting aside the deeper issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (for purposes of abbreviation), it should be obvious, that if we were to replace the two countries in this instance with two others in a similar situation, it becomes untenable to equate the criticism of any government's occupation with "racism": e.g., if someone were to ask me "what do you think of the situation in China," and I were to respond, "they should get the hell out of Tibet," it would be unlikely that you would call me an anti-Chinese bigot. In this circumstance, however, since Israel happens to be a religiously-affiliated state occupying a differently-religiously-affiliated state, it is acceptable(?).