“Identity” has been claimed by liberalism and is often used to directly attack communist positions (e.g. weaponised anti-semitism against anti-zionists).

That doesn’t mean that groups of common identities have (generally speaking) different class positions or differing oppressed/oppressor relations that can be recognised and useful in analysis. Grouping people based on their position within capitalist social relations is sort of the entire foundation of Marxism. “Palestinian” is an identity, but it’s also a concrete position held by certain people within the social relations of a settler-colonial state. This is where we brush up against the whole “race is a social construct”, which could also be stated as “race is a social relation”.

Where “idpol” gets weaponised by liberals (even the far right have started doing this to an extent) is ticking different boxes, and then using those characteristics as a cudgel to beat people in opposition over the head with, or to imply some innate expertise based on often bullshit self-professed subjectivity (“lived experience”). For example Kopmala is a woman, south asian, black, therefore will automatically be a good president for black people and women, because she is both black and a prosecutor she embodies the synthesis of liberals pretending to care about BLM but also wanting to twerk for thin blue line types, etc.