Republican Moves to Impeach Biden Over Potential Halt Weapon Sales to Israel

Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) has initiated impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden, citing “abuse of power” over the decision to potentially halt U.S. weapon supplies to Israel. This controversy stems from Biden’s remarks on CNN, where he suggested withholding offensive weaponry if Israeli forces proceed with a planned invasion into Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, according to The Hill.

The controversy gained traction when Biden explicitly linked the provision of U.S. arms to Israel’s military actions, stating that if Israeli forces enter Rafah, the U.S. would not supply the weapons typically used in such operations. This stance has been met with severe criticism from some Republicans, who view it as an unacceptable intervention in Israel’s military strategies, especially against Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that Israel will proceed with its plans in Rafah, despite warnings from the U.S. and other global allies, highlighting a potential clash over military strategy and diplomatic relations.

Rep. Mills’s resolution draws a parallel between Biden’s actions and the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump, who was accused of withholding aid to Ukraine for political leverage. Mills’s use of the term “Quid Pro Joe” on social media platform X underscores his critique of Biden’s approach as transactional and politically motivated.

This impeachment attempt is part of a broader pattern of challenges directed at Biden by House Republicans, with ongoing inquiries into his family’s business dealings and previous efforts to impeach him over border management. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has described Biden’s approach to Israel as a “catastrophic policy,” emphasizing the potential ramifications for U.S.-Israel relations.

The White House has dismissed Mills’s impeachment efforts as “ridiculous,” defending the administration’s stance as consistent with prior public statements and aligned with legislative requirements regarding foreign military funding.

As this political drama unfolds, it poses significant questions about the balance of U.S. foreign policy, congressional authority, and the strategic handling of international conflicts.