The shallowness of the discourse surrounding the Azaria affair and the hurling of stereotypes from the Right and the Left indicate that the political camps in Israel are so entrenched in their positions and that the discourse has grown so extreme to the point that no one is willing to consider the possibility they were wrong and that there may be some logic to the reasoning of the other position. But we have, regretfully one must say, grown accustomed to that in Israel. The unique gravity of the Azaria affair is the inflammatory discourse concerning the court. In this affair, we have reached a peak in which the court -- measured only by the last line in its verdict -- is "leftist," "anti-Zionist," supports terrorism and other names, which subject it to that same superficial public and political, dogmatic and dangerous discourse. And worst of all are the threats being made about the composition of the panel of judges. The court does not choose the cases that arrive at its doorstep, and it does not have the privilege of splitting from its authority to issue a ruling. It must rule according to the facts provided to it, according to its impressions from the witnesses and be subject only to the law. It does not choose "what is good for the Jews" or "what the public wants." This is also true in the present case. Few have read the 97 pages of the verdict, in which the judges thoroughly analyzed the evidence, reviewed each of the defense's arguments and turned over every stone. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised Sgt. Elor Azaria's father a "fair trial," but he did not promise him an acquittal. A fair trial does not always lead to an acquittal. The verdict must be accepted and dealt with through the conventional forms of appeal, and possibly through public criticism as well, but not through the delegitimization of the court system. The street cannot be the judge, and accepting the public's will as legitimate is indefensible in this context. The incitement now being waged against military court judges, beyond the damage it is causing to the foundations of democracy and the rule of law, is a detriment to society as a whole. The role of criminal law in our social contract is to rule in cases in which the state claims criminal law has been violated. Its public perception needs to be kept outside of politics. Our survival as a society obligates every citizen to know they have a court to turn to, and that in a situation in which the state, God forbid, begins legal proceedings against them, they will receive a trial based on substantive law and the evidence. Alongside the fact that incitement is in and of itself forbidden, this incitement in the public space harms the image of the court and the law. This hurts every single person in society, which loses the only anchor it has to an institution without political affiliations. The citizens and the public lose the only forum that is supposed to conduct itself according to the evidence, not the outcry. In a polarized society like Israeli society, we must not lose this anchor. The condemnation issued by Supreme Court President Miriam Naor and the order by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblitt to investigate the inciters is necessary. But they do not obviate the role of each and every citizen in denouncing the incitement. The public's trust in the judiciary is not the just the principle asset at its disposal, it is also society's most precious asset. Therefore, argue, express opinions, suggest changes and draw conclusions, but do not harm the public's faith in the judiciary. Because this offense is not just a detriment to the judiciary. It is a detriment to society. It is a detriment to us all. Professor Michal Tamir is an expert in public law at the Academic Center of Law and Science.