Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C. 155 argued that the main reason for the Aram-Israel attack against Judah was control over Transjordan. Thus, the coalition Aram-Israel was primarily interested in territorial expansion and not in forming an anti- Assyrian league as was thought earlier (5). C.S. Ehrlich applied this logic to Phoenicia and Philistia (6). Thus, both Phoenicia and Philistia, even though presented as Assyrian enemies, were primarily interested in controlling the lucrative Levantine trade routes and ports along the Mediterranean coast (7). However, even though from the modern historians’ point of view the Levantine states were not primarily interested in forming an anti-Assyrian league, from the Assyrian point of view the aspirations of the Levantine states for economic indepen- dence and their attempt to expand their territories were perceived as an anti-Assyrian activity. At the heart of this movement was Damascus (Aramean tribes) and Samaria (tribes in Northern Israel). Summ. 9:r. 4 adds that Tyre also plotted with Rezin, the king of Damascus and from other Assyrian inscriptions it is possible to conclude that Gaza and Arabian tribes led by queen Samsi were also part of this movement (5) B. ODED, “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered”, CBQ 34 (1972) 153-65. (6) C.S. EHRLICH, The Philistines in Transition. A History from ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 10; Leiden – New York 1996) 85-94. (7) B. Oded first formulated an idea that the Assyrians noticed the expansionist tendencies of Aram and Israel only during their campaign against Philistia; see B. ODED, “Historical Background”, 164. C.S. Ehrlich develops this idea further claiming that the Aram-Israel coalition became openly anti-Assyrian only after the Assyrian invasion of Philistia. He based his claim on the analysis of Neo-Assyrian letter ND 2715. According to his interpretation the Assyrians attempted to control the Phoenician trade in timber even before Tiglath-pileser III’s invasion of the Levant, but to no avail. The Assyrian invasion of the Mediterranean coast including Philistia was a military step aimed at getting the trade under control. C.S. Ehrlich dates this letter before 734 B.C.; see EHRLICH, Philistines, 94-100. However, as was demonstrated by G. Van Buylaere, this letter should be dated shortly after 734 B.C. The reasons are as follows. First, Qurdi-Aππur-lamur’s letter ND 2430 mentions Mitennu, the king of Tyre, who became king only after Hiram, i.e. after 734 B.C. Second, letter ND 2715 mentions that Qurdi-Aππur-lamur intended to bring the soldiers to Kaπpunu which was conquered at the beginning of Tiglath-pileser III’s intervention against the Levant. Third, Qurdi-Aππur-lamur’s letters suggest that the Assyrians were already in charge of Tyrian territory, since they could prohibit removal of the cultic objects (ND 2686) and set up tax collectors (ND 2715); see G. VAN BUYLAERE, “Qurdi-Aππur-Limur”, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (ed. H.D. BAKER) (Helsinki 1998) 1021-1022.