Acts of aggression, or defensive action?

“The portrayal of the Canaanite response to Israel throughout Josh 1-11 demonstrates a progressively increasing resolve and desire to fight (5:1; 9:1; 10:1-5; 11:1-5), with 11:1-5 forming the ‘literary climax’ of this progression. Moreover, every military campaign since Ai is portrayed as a defensive reaction to Canaanite aggression, with such aggression reaching a climax in Josh 11, in which Canaanite aggression is depicted with the use of ‘fearful fighting machinery’ (11:4). Again, the Gibeonites are contrasted with other locals (11:19) and perhaps it is significant that it is the inhabitants of Gibeon that are contrasted with other local kings (cf. 9:1 and 3-4a). Indeed, the cities that were fought against are depicted as royal cities, and Creach suggests that Josh 10-11 narrates ‘a repudiation and defeat of royal power. The problem is ... a form of monarchy based on oppression.’ He goes on to suggest that this idea is the key to the meaning of YHWH’s instruction to burn chariots and hamstring horses (11:6); ‘These two parts of the military machine symbolized the application of royal hegemony, gained often through brutality and abuse.’ Furthermore, Hawk notes that there are no details of the battles given, and that Hazor is singled out because it is the head of the kingdoms, ‘exemplifying Canaanite threat’, with the Anakim serving as symbols of Canaanite power. So despite the wider frame of reference of the commands to take the land, Josh 11 portrays Israel’s campaign of conquest of Canaan as an essentially defensive reaction against centres of aggressive military power.”—Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, pages 166-167

<idle musing>
While I'm not usually a fan of post-colonial interpretations, this one appeals to me as essentially correct. Of course, in the modern world, every war is a war of defense, not aggression, right? We don't have a Department of War anymore, now it is the Department of Defense. But that was not true in the ancient world; war was frequent and normal. Indeed, even in Samuel and Kings we see the expectation that there would be a season of war every year. I guess that is why this interpretation appeals to me so much; it is counter to the “normal” ancient thinking. Just an
</idle musing>