WHY 1967? Aren't the borders as defined for the rest of the region good enough? Can we alter the borders of, say , Iraq, to something other than the 1923 TREATY boundries?

It is a compromise, and much easier to facilitate than defnining the borders by the UN agreement. But if you think the borders as defined by the UN are preferable, that's your right. But I think you'll have a much harder time convincing the Israelis to agree to that than to the 1967 borders.

I have never understood why the 1967 borders were never good enough for the Palestinians and Arab nations until AFTER they had lost additional territory by attacking Israel, and losing. THEN they became some holy thing.

They didn't attack Israel. That has been more than amply proven already. Israel attacked its neighbors so it could have a pretext for taking more land. That has been its modus operandi from the very beginning.

" I support its right to defend those borders"

So I can presume YOU support the present actions Of Israel in Gaza, since they are in support of defending THOSE borders, which the Palestinians had attacked across, with both the tunnel and rockets.

I might if Israel hadn't been already bombing Gaza for the last umpteen years, and blocking and controlling Gaza's borders and air space. But it has, and so I don't.