I'm not one to comment on detailed content disputes, since those are beyond my realm of comfort for the most part, but is it possible that there could be a compromise that retains the link _where_ he wants it, but in a section labelled "Examples of modern anti-semitism" or something like that?
The problem with putting Jew Watch in the section 'Criticism' is that it lends too much credence to a website that mostly consists of insane rants. It isn't "Criticism" in the sense of rational respectful disagreement, it's just a huge pile of nonsense.
As to Paul's rantings on the mailing list, I strongly advise him to coooool it. If I were on the arbitration committee, and this came before me, I'd vote for a ban and be done with it.
Every time someone accuses us of censorship, etc., we should take it seriously. Are we being too quick to judge? Are we giving in to a temptation to suppress information that we aren't comfortable with? Are we being too harsh about something that is essentially a personality conflict, or a user who lacks social graces?
But, after that, it remains true that some people are just impossible, and it's a shame.
--Jimbo