I use the word "king" provisionally. Amarna scholars seem to all over the map as to what to call theses rulers or just exactly what they're responsibilities were. Sometimes they're called "governors" sometimes "mayors" sometimes "chieftains" their exact relationship to each other in general and the levvant in particular is maddeningly difficult to interpret. HOwever, my opinion, and it's only my opinion. Is that they were local rulers who had pledged somekind of fealty to pharaoh in return for protection against each other and other foriegn rulers, in particular the HIttites and the Mitannians. As long as the tribute came in they were protected. However the Amarna letters give a lopsided view of this and many scholars think that the whole levant was going down the tubes through Akhs. inaction. My opinion, again it's my opinion, is that this was the normal course of affairs. It was a brutal, ruthless country and Akh wasn't going to get involved in it unless he had too. As long as they were at each others throats they weren't uniting with the Hittites or the Mitannians against Akh. If my interpretation is correct instead of being an inept nobody, Akh was in fact a brilliant politician. Carefully keeping Egypt out of Mitannian and Hittite affairs while maintaining the integrity of Egypt. If a few dozen governors had to be sacrificed to maintain the integrity of the empire then so be it. There were plenty more where they came from.

But that's my opinion and as you can see it stands diametrically opposed to the "orthodox viewpoint" of his rule.