How is a one state solution less stable than the current situation?
I didn't say it was less stable, only that it wouldn't be stable. You get a lot of conflict over the control of this state. Its only stable if the Jews give up and leave or are forced out. Basically a one state solution is the same as a Palestinian win in the long run. Its not a neutral solution.
Most desirable solution from a pro-Israeli POV is: Jordan is taken over by the Palestinian majority and united with most of the West Bank. The new state then recognizes Jerusalem as Israeli territory, but gets sovereignty over Islamic holy places.
But this would require the Palestinians to accept that they lost in 1948 and 1967 and can never regain the lost territory, something thats hard to reconcile with Arab mentality.
A stable solution, as you would call it, is not possible. Nor is one that does not favor the Arabs. Your ideal Israeli solution is ridiculous. Even the Israeli far-right don't believe that will happen or want it to happen (the Israeli right does not want to give up the West Bank at all, that's why they keep building settlements and why a 2 state solution will never happen). On the left, liberal Israelis don't take seriously the idea of Jordan as a "Palestinian state," that's a pure right-wing talking point, that has no place in enlightened society. It's like saying Mexican Americans shouldn't have political rights because Mexico is a country.