Your argument is weak - If in fact the UN so gracefully "gave" us a nation in 1947 it should have been willing to protect its decision and send troops to assist us much like it did with Iraq 1991 and Kosovo later on.
The 1948 war ended in 1949 not thanks to the Un but as those fighting us gave up. The UN may have played a role in the Rodus discussions at best.

I believe we have recently witnessed (with all the events that took place prior to the US attack on Iraq) that the UN has finished its historical role in its original version

Mainly as it was not able to establish itself as an objective side in the argument and the mere fact that the US (rightfully or not) basically told the organization to "go to he.." and is now considering its financing policy towards the organization, as a punishment.

The fact that very few of the UN programs can really be quantified and be measured as "success" - be it the war against hunger or solving various conflicts is another reason why it should be abolished or reconstructed.

Additionally, I am not certain what is meant by the "global community" these days.

Who are its members? After the serious split (again with regards to iraq) between the US and part of Europe and Russia and the other part of Europe, which is the true community?
That term, too, needs to be updated per the events in the past few months.

Personally, I hold that all nations act on their interest and in this fashion, the UN as a body is the same.
Nations, and the UN have their own agenda which ever so frequent contradict with that of Israel (without starting again the argument well described above)
The fact that Arab leaders (to differenciate from their people) are sick of us sitting where we do is enough a good reason for nations like France (with close to 30% Muslim minority) to support their views.

While at the same time, Israel, being "normal" in the eyes of the US is a reason for the latter to support and rely on it.

And I happen to agree with Esti as to what's going on in England, It looks like you prefer to stick your head in the sand hoping that it is nothing extra-ordinary I just wonder what is the reason for that

Hey — Africa may be starving, but at least it's GE-food free!

Would you mind explaining?

Well, recently the UN has prided itself on "cleaning" Africa from Genetically-Engineered (or Genetically-Modified) food. Which would be swell, had Africa been this cornucopia of food production, for which GE/GM food is unnecessary.

But this is not the case, and GE/GM food could actually save millions of lives there. But we wouldn't let bare necessities get in the way of baseless technophobia, now would we? Why feed millions with GE/GM rice when we can just throw it away and let them perish, all in the name of Neo-Luddism?

Pardon my ignorence but I honestly do not get you.

I was critisizing the UN as a body whose its main and formost interest is to keep itself going (which is fine for any business) and justify itself to contributing nations (while hiding as much as possible all waste and huge administrative expenses in the process). All other goals and missions are second priority at best.

And here you are critisizing the UN for some food program it is running in Africa

Unless it's pure sarcasm I think we're on the same side of the boat.

Or, again, please explain what you wanted to say

Yes, we are on the same side of the boat. The UN is ineffective, and only succeeds with ludicrous initiatives that cause more harm than good.