So five year old Ethan Kapshetar chose to occupy this land? Or was it his eight year old sister Aline when they were both murdered, together with their parents, when they tried to escape from the terrorists?

https://oct7map.com/EthanKapshetar

Reparations are given by the group who perpetrated violence to members of the group of victims of violence, even many generations later. I see what you mean though, a justification for the creation of Israel was that Jews have historically been persecuted and did not have a homeland, but to me that doesn't fit the definition of reparations.

Yes, the UN had a partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. The Arabs of the area were under the impression that one can't make a country in the place where there is already a country (especially by giving the minority population a majority of the land), but before negotiations could proceed, Jewish militias came in and started blasting. Then they established the state of Israel and have been expanding ever since, rejecting any peace offers along the way.

Do you think Israelis are indigenous?

Not Israelis but Jews were about 25% of the population of Mandatory Palestine in the 1940s. They have existed there for thousands of years alongside Muslims and Christians, so yes Jews are indigenous.

Still, no excuse for occupation, oppression, and genocide.

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. 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?