Did the Gospel writers choose the name 'Judas' Iscariot as the traitor deliberately, because Judaism and the name Judah had the same etymology and they wanted people to hate Jews?

No. The name Judas Iscariot in the Gospels predates the idea that Judas became a traitor.

Matthew and Luke reproduce much of Mark, often word for word, and that fact supports the view of most scholars that the writers of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark before them when they produced their own Gospels. Those scholars conclude that Mark wrote the first Gospel.

Mark wrote the first Gospel, and in it, he gave us for the first time the name Judas Iscariot.

Mark gave us the name Judas Iscariot, but Mark did not develop the idea of betrayal in his Gospel.

In fact, Mark did not even mention the idea of betrayal in his Gospel.

To be sure, Mark reported that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to hand over Jesus to them, but he did not report a motive for that act, and he left open the possibility that Jesus himself sent Judas to make the offer. (Mark 14:10,11)

Moreover, Mark reported that Jesus said that the one who hands him over is one who eats with him (Mark 14:18); and, the one who hands him over is the one who dips with him in the dish (Mark 14:20), both of which statements are figures of speech which connote cooperation in the absence of a development of the idea of betrayal.

Mark did not report that Satan entered into Judas. (Luke 22:3-5)

Mark did not report that the devil put it into the heart of Judas to hand over Jesus. (John:13:2)

Mark did not report that Judas became a traitor. (Luke 6:16)

Mark did not report that Judas went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5)

Mark did not report that Judas suffered any ignominious death. (Acts 1:18)

In short, Mark gave us the name Judas Iscariot, but Mark did not report that Judas became a traitor.

Note: Prerequisite for understanding this argument is knowledge that the word “betray” (“betrayed,” “betrayer,” etc.) is a mistaken translation of the Greek known to Mark. The word Mark used did neither denote nor connote an act of treachery.