TEL AVIV, Israel — A former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations is afraid his country could be stepping into a trap if it agrees to the draft U.N. cease-fire resolution expected to be passed by the Security Council today or tomorrow at Turtle Bay.

In an interview yesterday, Dore Gold, who served as the Jewish state’s envoy to the United Nations under a Likud prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pointed out that the draft U.N. resolution sponsored by France and America calls on the establishment of a multinational force under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with grave threats to international peace and security.

As such, the second resolution authorizing the peacekeepers could lead to sanctions or military strikes against Israel should Jerusalem take pre-emptive military action against a Hezbollah militia that the Israel Defense Force is unlikely to be able to disarm by the time the armistice kicks in. The U.N. resolutions requiring, for example, Iraq to disarm after the first Gulf War were drafted with Chapter 7 authority.

The optimistic talk of peace in New York comes as Israel and Hezbollah engaged in one of the bloodiest days of battle in the near four-week conflict yesterday.

Iranian-made Fajr rockets rained on a civilian neighborhood in Haifa, killing at least three civilians and wounding at least 100. Meanwhile, the Israelis launched a major offensive bombing what they said were rocket launchers in Qana and Tyre, as well as the houses of Hezbollah commanders south of Beirut.

For the former ambassador, another danger for Israel will be when its enemies seek to thwart through diplomacy his country’s efforts to militarily preempt further attacks from Hezbollah. “For its entire diplomatic history, Israel has sought to avoid a Chapter 7 resolution dealing with Arab-Israeli disputes,” Mr. Gold said. “If you violate a Chapter 7 resolution, or fail to implement it, you may be subject to sanctions or military action subject to the U.N. Security Council.”

While the initial rejection from Lebanon’s government of the draft cease-fire has earned the most headlines, it is the relative acquiescence from Israel that is unique. Indeed, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry yesterday conceded that his country sought for the creation of a multinational force under Chapter 7 because it would give peacekeepers the necessary authority to proactively defend the buffer zone that Israel is trying to create in southern Lebanon.

“Israel has had a negative experience with the United Nations presence in Lebanon, which has done very little to deal with the serious issues in Lebanon,” Mark Regev said. “We have said from the beginning that a resolution has to have teeth and has to be effective. If you don’t have a special resolution, the U.N. forces will not be able to defend themselves. You need a resolution to do more, that allows them to be proactive.”

But Mr. Gold said he could foresee a dangerous scenario for Israel if it turned out that the next peacekeepers in Lebanon were as timid as the current batch under the U.N. International Forces in Lebanon.

He said he was particularly troubled that Secretary-General Annan would be in charge of drawing up how to implement a prior U.N. resolution calling on all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed. He noted that Mr. Annan said Israel had deliberately targeted U.N. outposts on the border, even though it later emerged that U.N. peacekeepers there had complained that Hezbollah was using their positions as cover from Israeli fire.

“Iran is likely to utilize Hezbollah as one of its key instruments. It will resupply it or possibly instruct it to make further attacks,” Mr. Gold said. “Should the multinational force not live up to the expectations of disarming Hezbollah, and Israel would have to send aerial surveillance or even a limited military operation against new Iranian missiles, this could trigger a diplomatic nightmare. There will be those who will argue that by doing so, Israel is violating a Chapter 7 resolution and should be subject to international sanctions.”

Mr. Regev, however, disputed Mr. Gold’s pessimistic assessment. He said Israel’s dispute was not with Lebanon. Insofar as the multinational force was to work in concert with the Lebanese army, it was not the same as other Arab-Israeli disputes. Furthermore, Mr. Regev pointed to other multinational forces that have been effective in Israel’s view.

“We have had international forces that we have been happy with and those that have been a failure,” he said. “There is a U.N. force in the Golan Heights that is doing a good job. The multinational force in Sinai is also doing a good job. The question is, what is the mission?”