What Genesis 34 does not clearly identify is whether the "rape" was a rape or a consensual relationship.

By modern standards, if the former, Jacob was clearly a betrayer of his daughter by giving her as a possession whatever the benefit to him. The wrong was done to her, not to him.

If the latter, then he would seem to be a carpetbagger, siezing the opportunity to make himself a profit by threatening to destroy his daughter and her lover.

In both such models I can see the parallel with Bush. What I do not understand is how the allegory of the "rape" of Dinah can be thought of as an argument to exculpate Bush for what (with hindsight) was a clear breach of international law.

On a separate tack, it is surely axiomatic for the international lawyer that regime change is not a generally legitimate basis for an invasion.