How Will Instability Be Caused?

According to an academic paper composed by Tuğçe Ersoy, 

Source

of Marmara University, Institute Research of Middle East and Islamic Countries, Political History and International Relations of the Middle East, İstanbul, entitled  “Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework” and published in the Bulletin of Palestine Studies, no. 1 (Summer 2017): 36-60,  Prime Minister Ehud Barak' s offer during  the Camp David talks in 2000:

a Palestinian state would have no air space and no military force. Besides, Palestinians would have no sovereignty but custodianship on Jerusalem. The creation of an economically weak and militarily unviable Palestinian state would represent a permanent temptation to an Israel which would retain its armoury and would be able to insist upon continued U.S. or international support. [Michael Rice, False Inheritance: Israel in Palestine and the Search for a Solution, (London: Kegan Paul International,1994), p. 185] As a result, an instable Palestinian state would bring more instability and violence to Palestine and would make a permanent peace unlikely.

Note:

a permanent temptation to an Israel

and

an instable Palestinian state would bring more instability and violence 

to Palestine and would make a permanent peace unlikely

As to the first assertion, Israel had no actual designs of Judea and Samaria prior to 1967 and had it not been due to Arab violence and terror, the war of 1967 would not have broken out, at least on the Jordanian front.  If not for the fedayeen terror of 195-1956, the responsibility of a temptation of initiating incursions would not had been.

Moreover, any Palestinian state in any configuration would invite a situation of instability from radical and extremist Islamist groups to be followed by interference from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iran or Iraq or any combination thereof. It would be sine qua non unstable, by definition.

At Marmara University, they float a lot of odd reasoning.

^