74 ROBERT B. CHISHOLM, JR. Canaanite Exception,” according to Sprinkle 14. He assumes that verses 19-20 belong with verses 10-15. Perhaps this is so, since there are verbal links between verses 19-20 and the earlier section, including “besiege” (vv. 12, 20), and “wage war” (vv. 10, 19). Furthermore, the introductory yk in verse 19 could be viewed as parallel to the yk in verse 10. However, the summary statement in verse 15 appears to conclude the literary unit encompassing verses 10-15. Perhaps verses 19-20 give a general policy that applies in either of the previous cases (non-Canaanite war or Canaa- nite war), but then again, as the text presently stands, verses 19-20 appear to be part of the “Canaanite exception.” If so, they would not apply to war with Moab 15. However, even if we grant that verses 19-20 belong with verses 10-15 and not with verses 16-18, they still do not apply to the situation described in 2 Kings 3. Israel had already subdued Moab (cf 2 Kgs 1,1; 3,4-5). From the perspective of the narrator, Moab was a subject of Israel that had al- ready accepted peace terms. The laws in Deut 20,10-20 appear to regulate Israel’s actions when initiating a campaign. To nations outside of Canaan they were to offer terms of peace in the form of a treaty (cf vv. 10-11). However, in Moab’s case, Mesha, a king who was subject to previously negotiated peace terms, had rebelled against his Israelite lord. This was a serious transgression that would involve implementation of treaty curses, which typically included the loss of agricultural produce, including fruit trees 16. Destroying the rebellious subject’s fruit trees, as well as his wells and fields, would be consistent with the spirit of the violated treaty’s curse list. Wright agrees with Sprinkle’s conclusion that the campaign in 2 K i n g s 3 violates Deut 20,19-20. He reasons that “if the law forbids the destruction of fruit trees even when a surrender is not forcoming after ‘many days’, then how much more does it preclude beginning a campaign by ruining ‘every good tree’ along with all the LSS [Life Support Systems] (every choice city, fertile field, and water SPRINKLE, “2 Kings 3:27”, 293. 14 See M. HASEL, “The Destruction of Trees in the Moabite Campaign of 2 15 Kings 3:4-27: A Study in the laws of Warfare”, AUSS 40 (2002) 203-206, as well as M. HASEL, Military Practice and Polemic. Israel’s Laws of Warfare in Near Eastern Perspective (Berrien Springs, MI 2005) 39. See Lev 26,20 and Deut 28,42, as well as ancient Near Eastern treaty 16 curses (cf. COS II, 214 [Sefire]; ANET 538, par. 47 [Esarhaddon]). It is perhaps significant to note that Thutmose III, who cut down fruit trees as a punitive action in his campaign against Naharin (cf. COS II, 15), viewed his enemies as rebels who had initiated wars of aggression against him (COS II, 14-15).