No, it's not remotely close. First of all I've actually posted my own position. I spent ample time trying to understand the history of the symbol overall, came to my own conclusion, and stepped to the side to not try to drown out everyone else. My wife and her family are all individuals that would theoretically be offended by this image, yet one of her brothers proudly wears it as a military medal and has a much more thorough understanding of its history that most amateur art historians on the internet. Doesn't mean their opinions trump anyone else's, just that it's been useful to have a dialogue with people that aren't seething to shit post on one another.
For the umpteenth time - context.
It's not about the origin of the logo/symbol/visual itself, but about what it evokes/represents/conotates.
For example, of course a theoretical Jew or POC would not mind being presented with a symbol/medal reminiscent of an iron cross if it represented service in anti-fascist army etc.
But if they were presented with the same looking cross/symbol that was a dog whistle for neo-fascists and people that they stood against...?
A cross could be "just a cross". Like, pharmacists and ambulance uses "a cross" as a symbol, sure. But if a cross is stylised purposely to evoke connections with certain other controversial insignia and was, on top of that, coopted by a known fascist/racist/hate mongering subsect of people? Well, quack quack...