I don't know, I don't know enough about the HP lore to know what the deep lore was meant to establish so I can't give you a reasoning. I also have never heard of HP being anti-Semitic only that it was somehow anti-trans solely because of Rowling's twitter exploits.
Again though, I think that a lot of that is projection. WW2 allegories are used in fantasy all the time and simply referencing the events does not mean there is some Nazi level secret plot by the people behind the project. I feel it's people projecting their hatred for Rowling upon the title for their own personal reason, not for anything that based on actual malice or intent by the developers behind the project.
What I really hoped would be clear at this point is that I don't really care about the developer's intent. If they're not malicious, they're incompetent, and there is a point where incompetence stops being funny or cute and just becomes disrespectful.
I don't think Rowling is anti-semitic in the sense that she hates Jewish people (although, again, she seems to be increasingly comfortable with people who hate all kinds of people) but when you reference the idea that there is a group of people out there who are secretly working together to control financial systems out of some collective loyalty and grievance against everyone else, you are referencing the real history of anti-semitism, because that's literally where that idea comes from. As a writer, this kind of entails a responsibility that, if you're going to do something like that, you have to be making a point.
And at the end of the day, the Harry Potter books don't have some overt Nazi agenda. They're far too boring for that. The awful truth is they're not really smart enough to say anything at all.
Rowling will present goblins as these absolutely single-minded little bastards whose only character trait is being greedy and conniving and resentful, then a few pages later she'll flirt with the idea that maybe goblins are like that because they're a discriminated underclass and maybe wizards
shouldn't just assume goblins are their inferiors, and then she'll just drop it and it will never be resolved. Rowling clearly knows that better writers sometimes use social commentary, but to her this comes down to vaguely implying that multiple sides of an issue might exist and then proceeding to ignore the issue entirely and never mention it again.
If Rowling wanted to come down on the side that goblins are completely irredeemable monsters, she could have done so. That would actually have solved much of the issue, because if goblins are just evil monsters then they can't really serve as a stand-in for any group of people. They're generic fantasy monsters who have no capacity for redemption because they don't have souls. Basically, the way Rowling writes fat people. It's still wouldn't be wholly unproblematic, but it would certainly be more understandable.
Conversely, if Rowling wanted to come down on the side that goblins are people and that treating them unequally is unfair and similar to discrimination against Jewish people, you'd expect that to pay off. Like, maybe at the end of the series the Minister of Magic signs a law which makes goblins equal and that one goblin character whose only role is to betray everyone and steal the sword of Gryffindor comes up to Harry and they hug it out and start making out passionately while Ginny watches. That's how you do a satisfying narrative arc. Something was wrong, but in the end it gets made right.
But both of these options require the writer to have the basic cultural and political awareness to know that if you're going to reference something serious, like anti-semitism, you need to actually have something to say about it, even if it's just "this thing that I'm writing about isn't anti-semitism". You probably shouldn't say, in your narrative story where the resolution is entirely within your control, that the world is unfair and then that the world being unfair is actually fine.
Well, I guess you can if you're a completely spineless liberal whose only beliefs are based purely on their own convenience.
