(Thumbnail Image: Dubai Police)

"Britain is expelling an Israeli diplomat from London.  It's understood he's the Israeli embassy's senior intelligence officer.  It's in response to the use of forged British passports, which Dubai police linked to the killing of a Hamas commander." (Al Jazeera English)

British investigators say Israelis used the passports to enter the hotel where Mahmud al-Mabhuh was murdered in January -- but despite international calls for a response, Israeli officials refuse to comment on the Hamas leader's death.

We're taking a look at Britain's decision to expel an Israeli diplomat, with perspectives from ABC News Australia, The Telegraph, Sky News, The Wall Street Journal and Press TV.

A correspondent on ABC News Australia says Britain's action didn't relay a sufficiently strong message.

Correspondent: "One of the people in the office here just spoke to a former British spy from the MI6 service who said, 'Look, they'll be laughing about this.  They've got 20 agents in the embassy there.  This is a slap on the wrist.  They'll think they got off lightly.'"

Anchor: "And, in fact, some people are suggesting it should have been the ambassador who was expelled, rather than a diplomat."

Correspondent: "Well, that really would have upped the anty."

A blogger from The Telegraph says he appreciates Britain's move -- but says it doesn't go far enough.

"I for one am deeply grateful to the U.K. government for their sudden concern for the sanctity of U.K. passports and the security of U.K. passport holders. Though it may be a little late in the day, has the government thought about turning this concern towards people who actually are terrorists?"

On Sky News, a Jerusalem-based blogger adds an Israeli perspective, saying Britain's decision to expel the Israeli diplomat shows the country's hypocrisy.

"The British know that espionage is a murky business and probably allows its spies to get up to the same kind of passport cloning jiggery pokery themselves. To get up on your high horse and condemn the murkiness of an ally’s operations is self-righteous, hypocritical, self-serving, two-faced, soapbox electioneering, many Israelis will say."

But on "News Hub," The Wall Street Journal's Middle East bureau chief says Israel won't retaliate against Britain, even amidst feelings of resentment.

"The diplomatic language is very restrained so far from Israel, suggesting that they may be perfectly happy to let things lie as they are.  It's very unlikely that they would respond by expelling a British diplomat."

On Press TV, a political analyst says Britain should condemn the assassination, not the Israelis.

"Those are the most substantial life and death issues, which you would expect the foreign secretry of Britain to be talking about or condemning to really show what principles she stands for.  Whereas, what is all this row about today was simply to say Britain is unhappy about the use of passports, rather than being opposed to assassination."

So what do you think?  Should Britain have expelled the Israeli diplomat?

Writer: Courtney Cebula

Producer: Newsy Staff