You're confusing cause and effect, and conflating several different issues. "Goblins" arose from a mish-mash of pan-European mythologies that share similar characteristics, those being a materialistic and greedy trickster spirit. Given the cultural groups that share this myth, its deviations, and the shared cultural predecessors of those cultural groups, it likely originated in Urnfield or Hallstatt culture -- an assertion that admittedly cannot be proven because we basically know fuck-all about either. That's about a thousand years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is as definitive an event as you're going to get for the start of the Hebrew diaspora.
Thanks for the history lesson.
(No, that isn't sarcasm.)
is it impossible to discuss or employ this myth without raising the spectre of antisemitism. The answer to that, in my opinion, is "no".
That, however, I'll have to disagree with.
Personal arguments aside, I'm only going to have to appeal to "the masses" here. "Hook-nosed goblin who loves gold" is such a common trope, yet accusations of anti-semitism haven't followed universally from them.
No, it was 100% Rowling's intent. You're leaving out the other half of that story.
The wizarding world hated and feared them for no good reason. Wizards generally refused to understand them, made no attempt to respect them, unilaterally deemed themselves culturally and morally superior to them, and demanded goblins assimilate to cater to their demands rather than the other way around. Which meant goblins were a hated, feared, and thoroughly oppressed group within the wizarding world, while wizarding society was were paradoxically and hypocritically reliant on them to function on even a basic level.
In other words, it was the exact relationship European gentiles had to European Jews throughout the entirety of the Medieval period. This relationship was framed within the context of Rowling's writings as fundamentally unjust, with wizards bearing final responsibility for that unjust state of affairs. And, that goblins ought to be accepted for who they are, and their culture understood and respected, in order for them to be considered equals in a just, pluralist, society.
This is the exact problem with the line of reasoning you're employing. You cannot look at the invocation of racial stereotypes in a given work of fiction in a vacuum; it must be examined in the context of the greater work itself in order to ascertain what social commentary, if any, is being made. Yeah, absolutely, no shit Rowling was invoking Jewish stereotypes in her depiction of goblins.
She was invoking those stereotypes to attack them, and by extension, antisemitism.
I'm really not sure about that.
The HP books absolutely invoke anti-semitic imagery within them - see the seventh book and the Ministry-issued books on Muggles/Muggle-borns. That, and the concept of "pure-bloods"/"blood-supremacy" is basically the Wizarding World's own version of racism (probably classism as well).
However, if we're discussing the goblins themselves, I'm not sure it holds up. On one hand, there's a brilliant line from Dumbledore in Book 5 that goes (roughly) "the fountain told a lie. We wizards have mistreated our fellow magical creatures for too long, and now we're paying the price for it." So yes, the books are aware that if you act like shit to certain groups, those groups might bite you back (in the case of the Dementors, nearly literally).
However, discussing goblins themselves, the books come off as far-less sympathetic. I checked the wiki to make sure, and for starters, here's a quote:
We are talking about a different breed of being. Dealings between wizards and goblins have been fraught for centuries ... There has been fault on both sides, I would never claim that wizards have been innocent. However, there is a belief among some goblins, and those at Gringotts are perhaps most prone to it, that wizards cannot be trusted in matters of gold and treasure, that they have no respect for goblin ownership
Griphook ends up being a villain in the seventh book. This, and the no. of goblin rebellions that occur. Now, the books never really go into the details of these rebellions, but if we're using Griphook as proxy, the books are more neutral on the wizard-goblin thing. There's no equivalent of SPEW for the goblins for instance, even though the house elves at large are happy with their condition.
Don't seem to recall that from the movie, but I didn't watch the later ones.
It's in the books.
Shock of all shocks, the movies don't go into nearly as much detail as the books, to the extent that some plot points don't make sense, or are severely butchered (the whole prophecy thing going from subversion/tragedy/self-fulfilling prophecy in the books to "you're the special" in the films).
And yet the actor behind Jar Jar was harassed and bullied by people who saw him as portraying and offensive stereotype. With Jelly Marie Tran we may never truly know who was behind it but who knows maybe it was some Rinn Shippers or is it Fey shippers.
No, I'm pretty sure Tran was hounded off social-media because of racists, and the whole idea that her presence was based on "forced diversity." Doesn't help that Rose arguably isn't the best character in the world, but none of that excuses it.
No-one does, be it Best, or Lloyd, or even George himself.