Well, it depends... The Obama Administration pressured Abbas hard not to go
> to the UN last year, and threatened to cut off US aid to the PA if he did.
> But when he did anyway, the Administration lobbied Congress hard - and
> successfully - not to cut off aid.
You're right. I erred by lumping the EU and US together in this regard. Of course the US will keep its aid flowing to the PA for as long as Israel prefers to avoid the responsibilities, financial or political, for its own occupation.
But it's the EU, not the US, that keeps the PA afloat. And the EU has some kind of pragmatism, if not principles:
"In another threat meant to spur the sides toward a deal, an EU official said Europe would tell the Palestinians on Tuesday it would cut aid off to the Palestinian Authority, which relies on donor funding to function. But such a move would hurt Israel more than the Palestinians, since it would leave Israel responsible for the fate of some 2.5 million Palestinians living under military occupation.
"'If there is no deal, the EU cannot fund the Israeli occupation anymore. Israel needs to be responsible for its occupation. This means no more EU money to the PA,' said the official, who requested anonymity because he was discussing private diplomatic matters."
If talks collapse, I don't expect much to happen overnight. But it seems clear to me that the EU, unlike the US, lacks the will to fund someone else's occupation forever.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."