This week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference was immense even by the organization’s traditionally outsized standards, with more than 6,000 delegates, students, and other activists packed into the cavernous Washington Convention Center.

The event was dominated by anxiety over a nuclear Iran, gloom about the prospects for Israel-Palestinian peace, a sharpened focus on the emerging “Christian Zionist” movement, and controversy over critics of U.S. policy in Iraq.

A high point for delegates was the ritual AIPAC “roll call” at Monday’s gala banquet, with the rapid-fire reading of the names of foreign and domestic dignitaries in attendance.

This year’s list included 48 Senate and 245 House members, at least three dozen foreign diplomats, and numerous administration officials.

Both of New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez, chowed down with the AIPAC delegates.

The breadth of the congressional delegation was staggering, ranging from pro-Israel stalwarts like Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim member of Congress.

During a multimedia presentation on the history of U.S. support for Israel, clips of Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush received the biggest ovations.

But at the political receptions following the Monday banquet, Republican presidential candidates were hard to find; Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), the only one to show, shook hands with small trickles of AIPACers.

In contrast, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), demonstrated rock-star appeal with rooms packed to the rafters, cameras flashing, and — in the case of Clinton — rock music blaring.

Pastor John Hagee, president of Christians United for Israel and author of several books dealing with Christian prophecy, electrified the crowd with a speech promising a new coalition comprised of “50 million Evangelicals joining together with five million Jews on behalf of Israel,” which he called a “match made in heaven.”

AIPAC officials, while focusing heavily on the threat of a nuclear Iran, emphasized that they were seeking toughened diplomatic and economic action, not war, to rein in Iran. But Hagee, who has openly advocated preemptive strikes against Iran, suggested that the biggest danger was appeasement.

“As you know, Iran poses a threat to the State of Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear holocaust,” he said. “I have been saying on national television, in churches and auditoriums across America, it is 1938, Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.”

Hagee also repeated his opposition to any new territorial concessions by Israel to the Palestinians.

“I am concerned that in coming months yet another attempt will be made to parcel out parts of Israel in a futile effort to appease Israel’s enemies in the Middle East,” he thundered to a crowd that gave him numerous standing ovations. “I believe that misguided souls of Europe, I believe misguided souls in the political brothel that is now the United Nations, and sadly in our own State Department, will try once again to turn Israel into crocodile food.”

A call-and-response chant of “Israel lives” evoked Hagee’s career as an evangelical revivalist, pleasing some members of the audience — and disturbing others.

“I found Pastor Hagee’s speech predictable but the response of the crowd disturbing,” said a top official of another Jewish group who attended the session. “Don’t these people realize what this man stands for, in terms of church-state separation, in terms of what his followers see as Israel’s role in the apocalypse?”

Several breakout sessions by Middle East experts painted a dark picture about prospects for any new peace process.

AIPAC president Howard Friedman said that “this year, not only has the conference grown in size, it has also grown more diverse. This year, not only do we have a record number of rabbis from congregations around the nation, but I want to welcome the record number of pastors who are with us.”

Several observers said the group has focused on recruiting Orthodox religious leaders, tapping a group whose Middle East activism has been strong and consistent.

On a day when Israel’s prime minister expressed support for the Iraq war in a speech to AIPAC and Vice President Dick Cheney warned against “undermining” U.S. troops with congressional antiwar resolutions, the biggest Jewish denominational group voted to toughen its stance against administration policy in the conflict.

The move by the Union for Reform Judaism, in the works for months, came just weeks after polling data showing that American Jews are more solidly against administration policy in Iraq than almost any other religious group.

At a meeting in New York on Monday, URJ’s executive committee approved a resolution opposing President Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq and calling for a timetable for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

That toughens a resolution critical of the war adopted at the URJ biennial in November 2005.

While noting some “important accomplishments” in the war, the resolution argued that since 2005, “the situation in Iraq has become far grimmer and more challenging. The ongoing and escalating loss of life among U.S. and coalition forces and the Iraqi people, and growing instability within Iraqi society, compels us to revisit and apply our policy to these changing circumstances.”

The statement also asserted that “in addition to the human cost of the war, the economic price of the war continues to divert much-needed funds away from domestic U.S. concerns.”

“The United States has been at war in Iraq for almost four years — longer than our engagement in World War II. There is no indication that our current policies are likely to lead to success; to the contrary, the American presence in Iraq may be fueling the current conflict, contributing to the rising death rate.”

Based on those concerns, the group called on the U.S. government to “set and announce a clear timetable for the phased and expeditious withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq” and to include estimated costs of the war in the annual budget. It also expressed opposition to “an escalation in troop strength” and support for the resumption of “reconciliation talks with the full range of Iraq’s political leaders.”

Sentiment within the 80-member executive committee was strongly in favor of the resolution.

Several Reform sources say a recent campaign by the Republican Jewish Coalition calling the resolution a “defeatist message that tells our allies and our adversaries that the U.S. lacks resolve regarding the war on terror and the war in Iraq” produced a last-minute flurry of calls and e-mails from critics. But most objections to the proposed resolution came from Reform activists who wanted the movement to go further by demanding a fixed timetable for withdrawal and the removal of U.S. bases in Iraq.

“URJ did the right thing, but there were a number of us who believed there were ample grounds for a stronger statement,” said one Reform activist involved in the debate. “I think there was a feeling that a moderate, cautious statement would have a greater impact.”

The executive committee did agree to a statement “out of respect for the minority,” making it clear that “Union resolutions are not intended to speak for each individual member of our synagogues, but for the North American Movement.”

Democrats promoting legislation intended to impose an exit strategy on U.S. Iraq policy had hoped to include provisions requiring Bush to seek congressional approval before any attack on Iran.

But those provisions were not added to the measure thanks to vehement opposition by pro-Israel members of Congress and the pro-Israel lobby.

The measure was part of a Democratic proposal calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by September 2008, a response to fears by some that Bush will launch an attack against Iran before the end of his term in 2009.

But it was opposed by a number of pro-Israel stalwarts, including Rep. Shelly Berkley (D-Nev.) and Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who expressed concerns about limiting the president’s flexibility in dealing with Iran.

There were numerous reports that AIPAC lobbied hard against it.

Asked about the group’s position on the controversy, an AIPAC spokesman pointed to portions of a speech to the gathering by AIPAC director Howard Kohr.

“We should be mindful that President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran are watching Washington very closely…any sign of weakness, any sense that we are willing to take options off the table will be taken as a signal that they can proceed with their plans,” Kohr said in that speech.

At the AIPAC policy conference, leaders sought to tamp down talk about war with Iran, but numerous speakers talked about the need to keep all options on the table.

“To be successful, or even to hold the hope of being successful, our Iran policy must be comprehensive,” said Ackerman at an AIPAC session on Iran. “However, to be successful, or to even hold the hope of being successful, our Iraq policy must be comprehensive. And a truly comprehensive policy demands that every means we have of applying pressure must be utilized and kept available. Everything must be kept on the table.”

But Ackerman also reflected widespread concern in the Jewish community that an administration that badly miscalculated and mismanaged in Iraq could do the same in Iran, with far more devastating consequences.

“I think the current administration has demonstrated that it could screw up a burial at sea,” he said.