In a nutshell

The text in context, when properly translated, does not describe the conquest as judgment on the Canaanites for their sins. None of the normal Hebrew words indicating crime or punishment are ever used to describe the Canaanites or their actions. The descriptions of Canaanite nations in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 9 are, in context, invoking a well-established ancient Near Eastern literary trope about hordes of invincible barbarians who are established by the gods to cause trouble for the servants of the gods before being destroyed by the gods. The purpose of the trope is not to justify attacking the barbarians and exterminating them, because the trope is normally used to describe enemies that the documents’ sponsor either cannot defeat or does not wish to fight. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the trope is not intended to describe the actual qualities of the historical people of Canaan. Rather, the imagery is employed to portray the conquest event as God driving away the forces of chaos in a recapitulation of the biblical creation story. This in turn is designed to interpret the conquest event as the establishment of a new created order and to interpret the covenant as the manifestation of that order. Finally, Genesis 15:16 does not say that the conquest was delayed so that the Canaanites could build up a balance of enough sin to warrant their destruction; it says that the conquest was delayed so that the violence and turmoil would not occur during the lifetime of either Abraham or his Amorite allies.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 256

<idle musing>
And that's the argument of the entire book. I tend to agree with them, but the mechanics of it are still difficult. Perhaps this, one of the final paragraphs in the book, sums up everything:

Understanding the Bible as what it is and according to what it actually says does not solve all our problems. It does not help us work out a philosophy of ethics, or of war, or to somehow vindicate God and his undertakings described in the Bible. Being faithful interpreters requires careful reading. Questions remain about how we should think about war today, but we cannot force those answers from the text. (258)

Indeed! So basically, I come away from this book with a better understanding of what ḥerem means, even though I don't agree with them totally, but I don't come any closer to understanding how to reconcile it with my ethics.

So, that's the end of this foray into ḥerem! I hope you learned something and are less frustrated by the book than I am! Monday we'll start a different book, one that's been on my shelf for quite a while: Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. I'm looking forward to it!
</idle musing>