UNITED NATIONS — Consultations on a Security Council resolution designed to halt the fighting in Lebanon were on the verge of “collapse” yesterday, two diplomats close to the negotiations among French, American, and Arab officials said.

Both diplomats, who attended a late evening closed-door meeting of the main players, described the negotiations as at an “extremely delicate” stage, and therefore spoke only on condition of anonymity. “The whole thing might collapse,” one of the diplomats, an American, told The New York Sun.

A French diplomat, who insisted the consultations between the two sponsors of the resolution are continuing, acknowledged that hope for a meeting of foreign ministers tomorrow, when the final resolution would be voted on, was now dimmer.

While Israel so far has refrained from publicly reacting negatively to any of the resolution’s provisions, Lebanese government officials and their Arab League backers have raised several objections in the last few days.

In a public council session yesterday, the Qatari foreign minister, Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, warned that if those objections are not addressed, Lebanon might descend again into civil war.

The objections, as well as the decision of the Lebanese government to send 15,000 troops into southern Lebanon, changed the thinking of the resolution sponsors, and specifically that of French diplomats, who signed off on an agreement last Saturday with their American counterparts to present a draft resolution calling for a “cessation of hostilities.”

After consultations with regional capitals, France and America — thinking they were able to incorporate the Israeli and Lebanese concerns into the agreed-upon text — finalized the proposal’s details Saturday. Once they presented the proposals, French diplomats were surprised to learn of new Lebanese objections that were raised shortly after the draft was circulated.

“We have taken into account many concerns from the Lebanese,” the French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, told the Sun. “Our role is to take into account the concerns of all.”

One Lebanese concern, he said, was addressed initially by mentioning in the resolution proposal that a solution should be found for the question of the Shebaa Farms, the Syrian tract of land that Hezbollah and its Beirut allies consider Lebanese territory.

After the resolution was circulated, however, Lebanon demanded that Shebaa be transferred to international custody. Lebanese and Arab diplomats also said Israeli troops must withdraw immediately after the resolution passes, to be replaced by U.N. forces until 15,000 Lebanese troops are deployed there.

“It’s true that the Lebanese are not perfectly satisfied with the text,” Mr. de la Sabliere said. Another French diplomat, who was not authorized to speak on the record, acknowledged that the new objections would have to be taken into account in amending the original text, but he said an effort would be made “not to destroy the balance” that currently exists as part of “the logic” of the proposal.

However, Arab officials are adamant that unless their concerns are addressed, no solution is possible. When asked by the Sun if the league was delaying an end to the fighting by making conditions, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amre Moussa, reacted angrily. “What we are talking about is how to produce a resolution that will be accepted and supported by the 22 Arab countries,” he said. “After 27 days, you are talking about a delay?”

Earlier, in an open session attended by Mr. Moussa and the foreign ministers of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon, Mr. Thani of Qatar said, “If we adopt the resolution without fully considering the reality of Lebanon, we will face a civil war.”

He added, “Instead of helping Lebanon, we will destroy Lebanon.”

The acting Lebanese foreign minister, Tareq Mitri, reminded the council that Lebanon has been asking for a cease-fire for a long time. “More than 900 lives ago, we asked for an immediate cease-fire,” he said. “More than 3,000 injured civilians ago, we asked for an immediate cease-fire.” But he added that the current resolution falls short of cease-fire.

“Everybody wants the fires ceased,” the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, told reporters. “A true cease-fire,” he added, “can be really achieved only once the fire has been extinguished.”

After the stormy session, Mr. Gillerman said the open debate added nothing to the negotiations.”Those who wanted a cease-fire lost a day, those who don’t want a cease-fire gained a day,” he said. He declined to answer specific questions about the provisions of the French-American proposal, saying there is a good reason why Israeli officials are not publicly addressing the the proposal.