Why do people treat only axioms as something arbitrary, whereas logic is seen as true and necessary? The logical rules of inference themselves pave the way to the conclusion for you in an axiomatic way. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is an axiom. We assume that a contradiction is impossible, just as we assume the axiom that a triangle has 180 degrees.
P.S. Is this a leftover from that period when the Rabbi still hadn’t yet stripped the concept of Jewish thought of its status?

You can relate to logic as something arbitrary, but it is still imposed on us. I think it is necessary and not merely imposed on us.
The classification isn’t mine, but obviously there are questions that the questioners classify that way.

A. What is this general necessity of logic?
B. How do we know that logic is imposed on us?
C. And doesn’t undermining rationalism also undermine logic?

It’s not something external that compels us; the necessity is internal. See the third column on knowledge and free choice.
How do you know that what you see really exists there? Everyone understands this. There’s no need for an explanation of how we know it.
Someone who undermines logic cannot undermine anything at all. Even undermining logic requires logic.