I'm all for abolishing the veto, I don't mind the members that always remain there but the vetos are the things that prevent things from happening. If France, Russia, and China hadn't been able to threaten a veto in 2002/03 over the Iraq issue I feel that the US would have actually put the issue up to vote. Saddam would probably not have counted on a veto protecting him and not assumed that Bush was bluffing invasion and trying to call it as that.
Same bit with Israel, the US could still give Israel the support it wants but couldn't veto every motion against Israel.
I don't think this would make the UN as impotent as the League of Nations, not having veto powers does not mean that nations will just ignore the resolutions passed by the UN.
Bookmarks