I see that the people here, and places like /r/leftcommunism are critical of national liberation movements because they seek to put proles under the power of a new national capital, replacing bourgeois with bourgeois.

But what about in the cases where this nationalist movement can intensify antagonisms between capital and labour?

Palestine comes to mind, as it stands I think it unlikely that any sort of class struggle could take place there, as an (admittedly distant) observer the minds of Palestinian workers seems to be focused on nationalism, more focused on class collaboration in order to improve their conditions than class struggle, and I don't think that would change assuming continued occupation by israel.

I'm reminded of marx's position on free trade, that of being in favour of it insofar as it develops capital and thus stokes the fires which will negate capital through the resulting antagonism.

Of course capital may be more developed in palestine than in the places marx was discussing (i'm not sure but it seems likely?) but the essential point is that in this case class struggle is more likely to intensify in a palestinian state than it what exists currently.

Then the question of "support" comes up. I suppose there is a difference between an individual supporting something and the communist movement/party/tendency/current supporting something. So should the party simply abstain from voicing its opinions on the matter, or simply advocating for a resistance among palestinians of proletarian character (knowing about impotent the advocacy of this is)?

Or should they advocate their "support" for the palestinian cause simply without collaborating with any bourgeois organizations/groups (which I would assume be all of them), and if the party does this, I suppose this is practically identical to not supporting it at all?

and if the party should avoid supporting palestinian nationalism was marx wrong to support free trade or am I wrong in comparing marx's position of free trade with palestine?

As an addendum should we support the development of capital today in places of low development (I have in mind china's current activity in africa) or is it that the situation today, on a global level, is simply different than in marx's time, and as such support for this sort of activity is not necessary anymore?

In addition to free trade, I'm also reminded of the following from Marx:

“I used to think the separation of Ireland from England impossible. I now think it inevitable.” Marx also wrote: “The English working class will never accomplish anything until it has got rid of Ireland. . . . English reaction in England had its roots . . . in the sub jugation of Ireland.”

Does this provide any insights?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_02-abs.htm