The war between King David and his son Absalom is a particularly personal conflict. Aside from the fact that it's a war between a father and son, most of the major tactical maneuvers on both sides rely upon the shifting loyalties of trusted friends and family, some of whom have histories with the House of David stretching back several generations. It's at this point in the story that it becomes apparent just how complex the drama has become. Small slights and minor mercies from previous chapters end up manifesting as life-or-death political decisions, though this isn't really depicted as being a good thing.
The theme I've maintained throughout this feature is the idea that the Books of Samuel aim to dissuade people from ever asking for monarchs in the first place. I believe that it accomplishes this by appealing to certain sensibilities that have always been a part of Judaism. It would have been considerably easier to simply depict kings as selfish monsters than to create the complicated, melodramatic narrative we have before us. Biblical texts certainly aren't above simplifying individuals and indeed whole nations for the sake of a simple story. So, why are these destructive, often sinful kings not just depicted with the same reductive antagonism as, say, the heartless foreigner stereotypes of Amalek?
The layered narrative of the kings of Israel is a story of human frailty. It's not enough to just posit a king as a one-dimensional villain. It is far more effective to portray him as he is, describing him as a real person who bears all of the same flaws as his more common neighbors. David's story is a Jewish story, so it latches onto the dramatic structure of family. As much as this faith values family, it doesn't romanticize the idea of family. When love, intimacy and expectation are ever-present, as they are in one form or another with family, life gets messy. Families grow, change and have internal conflict. These are all things that cause a government to suffer and fail.
So, as Absalom's uprising seeks out David's defending contingent, it's not the might of armies or even the sway of public opinion that makes the difference, it's the confidence of family relations. Some of David's old allies advise Absalom against him while some of Absalom's most trusted tacticians are actually spies for his father. The whole thing plays out as its own miniature tragedy. The messy court intrigue results in a lot of things, from the suicide of Ahithophel to the criminal exile of Ahimaaz and a descendant of Jonathan. However, it doesn't result in any political momentum for either David or Absalom.
Tucked away in this drama is a curious episode during David's march away from Jerusalem. In a place called Bahurim, David's party is accosted by a man name Shimei (or Shimi), a cousin of Saul's. Shimei casts curses and stones at David and his supporters, but David chooses to ignore the man when he could easily have him killed. David's excuse is that perhaps God compelled Shimei to act this way so it would be improper to punish him, but the tone of the scene suggests that there's nothing divine at work. Rather, David acts in resignation. It would be pointless and cruel to punish Shimei. He's no real threat, he's just an angry, pathetic man with nothing to lose. Given all the recent discord in David's life, how he loses family and friends with such ease, he just doesn't have the heart to make any more enemies in the world.