There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc
NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.
So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?