Was Jud Suss a veiled criticism of Hitler?

The German versions of "Jud Suess" and "Der Ewige Jude" were not criticisms of Hitler. But they were "take-offs on American (Jew Suess) and British (The Eternal Jew) films of the same names that were critical of Hitler.

The German versions were "sponsored" by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, who took a personal interest in "turning" the Anglo-American films. It is highly unlikely that he would allowed the production of anything critical of Hitler (although it is barely possible that individual critical passages were "slipped in").

The Nazis were cynical, hypocritical people, and it was not above them to "overrule the interests of [legtimate authority and]... amend the constitution." Their only quarrel with such actions was when Jews did them.

It might be worth mentioning that the American and German films are both based on a novel by Lion Feuchtwanger, who was a Jew and an outspoken critic of the Nazis even before they came to power. The German film completely reverses the tendency of the novel.

I think, no. I think this film's plot was not intended as criticism of Hitler. To understand it one should have idea about Nazi mentality. They did not consider themselves as some tyrants that suppress people but rather a protection of the people from such tyrants who are manipulated by the Jews and uses foreign support to seize power.

Beside this, the character of the Duke and the whole situation is quite typical. When watching this film, I could not get rid of the feeling that the film is about Russian history of the 1990s. The Duke very much resembles Boris Yeltsin. He also was quite a drunkard, there were a lot of expensive festivities at the period, he employed some popularly-hated Jews like Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar as economy advisors and ministers (Chubais was the head of the state property committee). When the Supreme Council refused to appoint Gaidar as prime minister, Yeltsin made an anti-constitutional coup and ordered tanks to shoot on the Council building. As in the film, the currency experienced hyperinflation at the time.

Currently in Russia there is ongoing another conflict: the billionaire Rotenberg brothers (friends of Putin) introduced the payment system "Platon" that would collect payments from all freight truck drivers for using the roads to the benefit of their own firm, under the pretext the roads need maintenance and repair. Part of the payment will go to the state, but a significant part would go to the hands of the Rotenberg brothers, just as it was in the film with Oppenheimer in the role of the Rotenbergs. There are mass protests about this idea.

So, the history repeats or it was just a typical situation. That said, the film, I think has very little positive characters, possibly only the dead girl and the old rabbi, for which fact (absence of positive characters) the film was already criticized at the time of creation.

Even the father of the girl is shown negatively in that he forced his daughter to marry his secretary, a man whom she did not love (although friendly) so that she not to marry a Jew. The fact she did not love her husband is shown by the fact that she refused to sleep with him at the first night after marriage (and supposedly later as well), which is not how loving people typically behave. It is conceivable she had real feelings towards Oppenheimer.

It also hints at the idea that Oppenheimer became evil because of the anti-Semitism (he says so). In the initial part of the film he is constantly attacked and insulted just for being Jewish, and tries to respond politely. In the film other Jews than Oppenheimer and his aides are not shown to do anything bad, but suffer in the end.

In general I think the film makes attempt to describe inter-ethnic interactions as realistic as possible, even though the whole narrative may be beneficial to the Nazi cause.

On the other hand if you consider another German film "Munchhausen" of 1943, where the same actor, Marian plays a role of Jewish count Cagliostro you definitely will see a lot of criticism of the regime. Starting from the fact that Cagliostro is a positive character, Munchhausen helps him to escape an arrest and disappear, the Venetian doge is very similar to Mussolini, and employes secret police, a scene in the harem where a black woman had better teeth than a white woman, enraging her and a lot of other stuff.