Control Measures for Commensal Rodent Infestations in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, during Israel’s Ongoing War of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing (2023–2026)

INTRODUCTION

Commensal rodents have lived in close association with humans for thousands of years and remain among the most widespread and economically important vertebrate pests worldwide [1] [2]. The development of permanent settlements, food-storage systems, agriculture, trade, sewage networks, and densely populated cities has created ecological niches that favor their survival and expansion. Unlike many wild rodents that depend primarily on natural habitats, commensal species exploit human-modified environments where food, water, shelter, and breeding sites are continuously available [3]. Their omnivorous feeding behavior, high reproductive potential, behavioral flexibility, and ability to enter buildings through narrow openings enable them to establish persistent populations in houses, markets, warehouses, hospitals, schools, farms, food-processing facilities, sewers, ports, waste-disposal sites, and displacement camps [4] [5]. Consequently, rodent infestations represent a complex challenge involving public health, food security, environmental sanitation, agriculture, and urban infrastructure.

Three species account for most commensal rodent infestations associated with human settlements: The Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1769), the Black Rat (Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758), and the House Mouse (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758). Although all three species benefit from their association with humans, they differ considerably in body size, ecology, behavior, habitat preference, climbing ability, and nesting habits (Figure 1 & Table 1). The Norway Rat commonly occupies underground burrows, sewers, drainage systems, refuse sites, waterfronts, and the lower parts of buildings. The Black Rat is an agile climber that frequently inhabits roofs, ceilings, warehouses, orchards, trees, and port facilities. The House Mouse readily establishes breeding colonies inside houses, tents, food stores, poultry farms, livestock buildings, and commercial premises. These ecological differences influence infestation patterns and responses to control measures, making accurate species identification an important prerequisite for selecting suitable trapping, baiting, exclusion, and habitat-management strategies [4]-[6].

The association between humans and commensal rodents is particularly ancient in the Levant. Archaeological evidence indicates that House Mice began exploiting ecological niches created by increasingly sedentary human communities in the region approximately 15,000 years ago [7]-[9]. Today, commensal rodents occur widely in urban, rural, coastal, and agricultural environments throughout Palestine [10]-[13]. In the Gaza Strip, they infest residential neighborhoods, refugee camps, food markets, grain stores, poultry and livestock farms, agricultural fields, sewage systems, municipal waste sites, ports, and food-processing facilities [3]. Local investigations have also demonstrated that commensal rats can harbor gastrointestinal parasites and ectoparasites of potential medical and veterinary significance [3] [10]-[16].

Commensal rodents are also represented in the zoological collections of Palestinian universities in the Gaza Strip. Preserved and taxidermied rodent specimens have been documented in biology museums and exhibitions at the Islamic University of Gaza, Al-Azhar University, and Al-Aqsa University [17]-[19]. The extensive zoological collection formerly housed in the Biology Department Museum at the Islamic University of Gaza included numerous mummified terrestrial and marine vertebrates, reflecting the value of university museums in documenting the local fauna [19]. Of particular interest, two unusual live commensal rodents—a House Mouse (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) collected in 2005 and a Black Rat (Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758) collected in 2007—were brought to the Biology Department of the Islamic University of Gaza and subsequently preserved. Both specimens exhibited conspicuous morphological abnormalities suggestive of possible mutations (Figure 2); however, their genetic basis was not experimentally confirmed because specialized genetic investigations were unavailable [17].

Commensal rodents pose numerous public-health risks because they can harbor bacteria, viruses, protozoa, helminths, fungi, and ectoparasites. They have been associated with leptospirosis, salmonellosis, plague, murine typhus, rat-bite fever, lymphocytic choriomeningitis, hantavirus-associated diseases, and several parasitic infections [20]-[25]. Fleas, mites, lice, and ticks carried by rodents may also transmit pathogens between rodents, domestic animals, and humans [13] [15] [16] [22] [26]. Regional systematic reviews have documented considerable diversity of rodent-associated helminths and ectoparasites in Middle Eastern countries, emphasizing their importance at the human–animal–environment interface [27] [28].

Transmission does not necessarily require direct contact with rodents. Their urine, feces, saliva, hair, nesting materials, and ectoparasites can contaminate food, drinking water, cooking utensils, household surfaces, warehouses, shelters, and animal feed [2] [20] [22]. Rodent infestations may also cause fear, psychological distress, sleep disturbance, and a reduced sense of safety, particularly when rodents enter crowded sleeping areas containing children, older adults, injured people, or immunocompromised individuals [29]. These risks become especially serious during humanitarian emergencies, when malnutrition, poor hygiene, limited medical services, and shortages of medicines increase the vulnerability of affected populations [30]-[32].

Rodents also cause considerable economic and material losses [1] [33]. They consume and contaminate stored grains, vegetables, household food, animal feed, and humanitarian relief supplies [1] [4] [33]. Their continuous gnawing damages electrical wiring, communication cables, water pipes, insulation materials, furniture, food containers, irrigation systems, and household belongings. Contamination may make food unsuitable for consumption even when the quantity directly eaten is relatively small. In agricultural environments, rodents can damage crops, seedlings, irrigation networks, poultry facilities, and livestock feed. Their impacts therefore extend beyond nuisance infestation to food insecurity, household expenditure, infrastructure deterioration, and environmental-health problems [4] [33]-[35].

Before October 2023, rodent management in the Gaza Strip depended on the combined efforts of municipalities, environmental-health departments, agricultural authorities, private pest-control operators, businesses, farmers, and households. Control activities included waste collection, sewage and drainage maintenance, removal of rodent harborages, improvement of food storage, sealing of structural openings, mechanical trapping, and selective application of anticoagulant rodenticides (Personal Observations). These measures were broadly consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which combines environmental, structural, mechanical, biological, educational, and chemical interventions [5] [6] [36] [37]. Nevertheless, their effectiveness was already limited by high population density, inadequate infrastructure, restricted resources, and repeated damage resulting from previous military escalations.

Complete eradication of commensal rodents is rarely achievable because surviving animals can reproduce rapidly and recolonize treated areas whenever food, water, and shelter remain available [6] [36]. Modern rodent management therefore focuses on sustainable population suppression and reduction of human exposure. IPM seeks to reduce the environmental carrying capacity for rodents through sanitation, habitat modification, structural exclusion, surveillance, trapping, community participation, and carefully targeted use of rodenticides when necessary [5] [34] [37] [38]. This approach is generally more sustainable than dependence on chemical control alone and reduces the risks of accidental poisoning, environmental contamination, secondary poisoning of wildlife, and rodenticide resistance [39]-[41]. The detection of anticoagulant-resistance mutations in rodents elsewhere in the region further demonstrates the importance of responsible rodenticide use [41]-[43].

Since October 2023, Israel’s ongoing war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023-2026) has caused unprecedented humanitarian and environmental destruction throughout the Gaza Strip. Residential neighborhoods, agricultural lands, markets, food warehouses, hospitals, water wells, sewage networks, roads, and municipal waste-management systems have been extensively damaged or destroyed [3] [26] [44]. The displacement of the overwhelming majority of the population into overcrowded camps, tents, schools, damaged buildings, and improvised shelters has radically altered patterns of human habitation and sanitation. Massive quantities of household refuse, food residues, wastewater, demolition debris, and abandoned materials have accumulated near populated areas, while routine collection and safe disposal have been severely disrupted [44]-[47].

These war-generated conditions provide rodents with abundant food, water, shelter, and breeding sites [3]. The enormous volume of war-generated rubble, estimated at more than 68 million tonnes, has created a highly favorable environment for the shelter, reproduction, population growth, and proliferation of commensal rodents [3] (Figure 3). Demolition debris offers numerous protected nesting cavities, while its porous and structurally complex nature reduces rodents’ exposure to natural predators, including mammalian carnivores, birds of prey, and reptiles, thereby further facilitating their increasing spread. Damaged sewage systems provide water and movement corridors, accumulated refuse supplies abundant food, and abandoned buildings create relatively undisturbed harborages. Open food-distribution points, community kitchens, informal markets, and inadequately protected household food supplies may further concentrate rodent activity near displaced populations. At the same time, many families live in tents or damaged structures that cannot be adequately sealed. Food and water are often stored in makeshift containers, while waste may accumulate close to living and cooking areas. Such conditions facilitate the contamination of food, utensils, bedding, and water supplies with rodent urine and feces.

Field-based evidence has documented widespread infestations of mice and medically important arthropods in Gaza Strip displacement camps, where overcrowding, poor sanitation, accumulated waste, inadequate food storage, and deteriorating environmental conditions have increased the risks of pest-associated and infectious diseases [26] [48]. Recent assessments of vertebrate pest outbreaks have similarly identified commensal rodents as important components of the broader public-health, environmental, and humanitarian crisis affecting displaced communities in the Gaza Strip [3]. The problem is further intensified by the collapse of water, sanitation, hygiene, healthcare, and disease-surveillance systems, which has reduced the capacity to prevent, diagnose, and manage infectious diseases [31] [45] [49].

At the same time, the operational capacity to control rodents has been severely constrained by shortages of fuel, vehicles, rodenticides, traps, bait stations, protective equipment, and trained personnel. Damaged roads and continuing military operations restrict access to affected areas, while repeated population displacement makes sustained monitoring difficult [3]. Unregulated use of toxic materials can also endanger children, domestic animals, wildlife, and the wider environment. These constraints underline the need for interventions that are safe, inexpensive, locally available, and adaptable to rapidly changing humanitarian conditions.

Despite extensive international literature on commensal rodents and IPM, relatively little attention has been given to practical rodent management during prolonged wars. Most established recommendations assume functioning municipal services, stable access to infested sites, reliable supply chains, trained personnel, and continuous monitoring. These assumptions do not reflect conditions in the Gaza Strip, where infrastructure collapse, mass displacement, resource scarcity, environmental destruction, and ongoing military operations occur simultaneously [3]. Although recent studies have documented vertebrate pest outbreaks, mice and arthropod infestations, WASH deterioration, and infectious-disease risks in Gaza, a comprehensive assessment focused specifically on feasible control measures for commensal rodents under current conditions remains lacking [3] [26] [48].

Accordingly, the present study examines the principal measures available for controlling the Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1769), the Black Rat (Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758), and the House Mouse (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) as commensal rodents in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ongoing war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023–2026), with particular emphasis on displacement camps and war-affected communities. It evaluates the applicability of environmental sanitation, habitat modification, structural exclusion, mechanical trapping, biological regulation, selective chemical control, surveillance, public education, and community participation under conditions of severe material and operational constraint. By identifying practical, affordable, and evidence-based interventions adapted to the humanitarian reality of the Gaza Strip, the study seeks to reduce rodent infestations, protect food and water supplies, minimize rodent-associated health risks, improve environmental sanitation, and strengthen community resilience during the continuing emergency.

2. METHODOLOGY

Study Area

The Gaza Strip is a narrow coastal territory in southwestern Palestine covering approximately 365 km² (Figure 4) and comprising five governorates: North Gaza, Gaza, Deir Al-Balah, Khan Younis, and Rafah. Before October 2023, it supported more than 2.4 million inhabitants under conditions of high population density, economic restrictions, and inadequate infrastructure. During the Israel’s Ongoing War of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing (2023–2026), widespread destruction, repeated displacement, economic collapse, and disruption of water, sewage, and waste-management services created favorable conditions for commensal rodents [3] [44] [48].

 

Study Methods

This descriptive study combined field observations, stakeholder interviews, and a review of relevant literature. Field visits were conducted in accessible areas of the Gaza Strip, including displacement camps, residential neighborhoods, markets, food stores, farms, waste-accumulation sites, and damaged buildings (Figure 5). Signs of rodent infestation, such as sightings, droppings, burrows, gnaw marks, contaminated food, and damaged containers, were documented whenever encountered. Local markets and shops were also visited to identify available traps, rodenticides, bait materials, and other control products. Informal interviews were conducted with municipal and environmental-health personnel, pest-control workers, traders, farmers, food vendors, displaced residents, and other relevant stakeholders to investigate infestation patterns, commonly used control practices, material availability, costs, effectiveness, and implementation constraints.

The collected information was supported by scientific literature on commensal rodents and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Control measures were classified into sanitation, habitat modification, structural exclusion, trapping, biological regulation, chemical control, surveillance, and community participation. Their suitability was evaluated according to effectiveness, affordability, local availability, safety, and feasibility under wartime conditions.

3. RESULTS

Field visits to accessible areas of the Gaza Strip, observations in displacement camps, residential neighborhoods, markets, shops, food stores, farms, waste-accumulation sites, and damaged buildings, together with interviews with municipal personnel, traders, farmers, pest-control workers, food vendors, and displaced residents, revealed the use or availability of several methods for controlling commensal rodents. These methods were classified into cultural and environmental, physical and mechanical, chemical, biological, behavioral and educational, community and institutional, and surveillance-based control measures.

 

1. Cultural and Environmental Control

Cultural and environmental control represented the most widely applicable preventive approach. Common practices included cleaning living and cooking areas, removing spilled food and household waste, protecting drinking water, and storing food and animal feed in tightly closed containers (Figure 6). Residents and traders also attempted to elevate food packages above floor level and inspect stored commodities regularly for droppings, gnaw marks, and damaged packaging. Other practices included removing cardboard, fabrics, damaged furniture, wood piles, discarded containers, dense vegetation, and other materials that could provide rodents with nesting and hiding sites. Cleaning areas surrounding tents, houses, shops, community kitchens, poultry facilities, and livestock shelters was particularly important for reducing rodent access to food and shelter. The effectiveness of environmental control was severely constrained by accumulated refuse, damaged sewage systems, water shortages, overcrowding, demolition rubble, disrupted waste collection, and the limited availability of secure food-storage containers. Consequently, household sanitation alone was often insufficient where the surrounding environment continued to provide abundant food, water, and harborages.

2. Physical and Mechanical Control

2.1. Structural Exclusion and Rodent-Proofing

Structural exclusion was identified as one of the safest and most sustainable preventive methods. It included tightly closing houses, tents, shops, kitchens, and food-storage areas; repairing damaged doors and windows; and sealing cracks, holes, and gaps in walls, floors, roofs, and foundations. Openings around water pipes, electrical cables, ventilation points, drains, and sewage connections were also considered important entry routes requiring closure. In houses and relatively stable buildings, cement, bricks, stones, sheet metal, durable wire mesh, and door sweeps could be used to prevent entry. Weak materials such as thin plastic, fabric, cardboard, or soft wood provided only temporary protection because rats and mice could gnaw through them.

In tents and improvised shelters, residents repaired torn fabric, secured tent edges firmly to the ground, and reinforced lower sections using wire mesh, wood, metal sheets, stones, sandbags, or other available materials. Tent entrances were kept closed whenever possible, particularly during the night, while food-storage sections were separated from sleeping areas (Figure 7). Rodent burrows located near houses, tents, kitchens, food stores, and animal shelters were identified and closed using soil, stones, cement, or other suitable materials. Burrow closure was more effective when conducted after determining whether the burrow was active and after controlling the rodents occupying it.

2.2. Mechanical Trapping

Mechanical traps were among the main direct-control tools available to households and traders. They included snap traps, cage traps, multiple-capture traps, and locally manufactured trapping devices (Figure 8). Humane tunnel-type live traps provide an additional non-toxic option for capturing and monitoring House Mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) (Figure 9). Typically made of durable plastic, these traps use a gravity-activated seesaw mechanism that closes the entrance when a mouse enters to reach the bait, allowing live capture with minimal injury. Their enclosed design also reduces direct contact and makes them suitable for field surveys, biological sampling, and integrated pest management. Bread, dates, cheese, meat, fish, grains, and other available foods were used as attractants.

 

Traps were generally positioned along walls, behind furniture, close to food stores, near burrow entrances, and in locations where droppings, tracks, gnaw marks, or direct sightings had been recorded. Their effectiveness depended on using sufficient numbers, selecting appropriate bait, placing traps correctly, and inspecting them regularly. Cage traps enabled the live capture of rodents but required safe handling and humane disposal. When appropriately sized and positioned, snap traps could kill rodents rapidly by striking the head, neck, or spinal column or by constricting the thorax. Traps contaminated with blood, urine, feces, or carcass material required careful cleaning and disinfection before reuse.

 

2.3. Glue Boards and Adhesive Traps

Glue boards were commonly available for capturing House Mice inside houses, tents, kitchens, shops, and food stores (Figure 10). They were inexpensive and easy to deploy but became less effective when covered by dust, sand, water, oil, or food residues. Their effectiveness against large rats was also limited. Adhesive traps could cause prolonged animal suffering and might unintentionally capture lizards, snakes, birds, or other non-target animals. They therefore required frequent inspection and careful placement away from children, domestic animals, and wildlife.

 

2.4. Improvised Traps

Shortages and high prices of commercial traps encouraged the use of locally manufactured devices, including buckets, deep containers, boxes, wire cages, falling-door traps such as the bucket flip-and-slide mouse trap (Figure 11), water-container traps, and other devices constructed from available household materials. Although their designs and effectiveness varied considerably, these improvised traps provided inexpensive alternatives when commercial products were unavailable. They were most effective when designed to prevent rodent escape and inspected frequently. Water-filled devices posed drowning hazards and therefore required careful placement to protect children and non-target animals.

2.5. Direct Physical and Manual Killing

Direct physical killing was occasionally practiced when rats or mice were encountered in enclosed rooms, tents, shops, food stores, or other confined spaces. Residents sometimes restricted rodent movement using brooms, sticks, boards, furniture, containers, or other objects and then killed the animals by striking or crushing them. Rodents were also captured beneath containers or killed after being confined in buckets, pits, rooms, or improvised traps. This method was inexpensive and provided an immediate response to visible rodents, especially when traps and rodenticides were unavailable. Nevertheless, it controlled only individual animals and did not affect hidden rodents, nests, or young. Chasing rodents could also increase the risk of bites, scratches, contact with urine and feces, and exposure to fleas, mites, or other ectoparasites. Rodents should not be handled with bare hands. Gloves, closed footwear, and appropriate tools are required during capture, killing, collection, and disposal. Carcasses should be placed in sealed bags or suitable containers, and contaminated surfaces should be cleaned and disinfected. Dry sweeping of rodent feces or nesting materials should be avoided because it may disperse contaminated dust.

 

2.6. Burrow Destruction and Flooding

Physical destruction, filling, or flooding of rodent burrows was occasionally used around houses, farms, markets, and waste sites (Figure 12). These practices could reduce shelter availability or force rodents from their burrows, allowing them to be trapped or killed. Burrow treatment was unsuitable near unstable buildings, sewage networks, electrical installations, or occupied shelters where flooding or soil disturbance could cause additional damage. Closing burrows without controlling the rodents could also force them to establish new burrows or enter nearby houses and tents.

3. Chemical Control: Poison Baits and Rodenticides

Chemical control included commercially prepared rodenticides formulated as treated grains, pellets, pastes, powders, or wax blocks. These products were applied, when available, in houses, shops, markets, warehouses, farms, poultry facilities, sewage-affected areas, and displacement camps. Commercial formulations might contain anticoagulants or acute toxicants. During the early stages of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, rodenticides became extremely scarce. Meanwhile, commensal rodent populations increased substantially because of widespread destruction and the accumulation of more than 68 million tonnes of rubble, together with uncollected solid waste and refuse, damaged sewage systems, food residues, overcrowding, and other environmental factors that provided abundant food and shelter.

More recently, advertisements for various rodenticides and poison baits have become increasingly common on social media (Figure 13). Nevertheless, many residents could not afford these products because of their high prices, while others complained of limited effectiveness against the exceptionally large and rapidly increasing rodent populations. Some residents described the rodents as “multiplying like hell,” reflecting public frustration and the perceived inability to halt their exponential spread. Products available through markets and social-media sellers varied considerably in price, formulation, labeling, quality, and reported effectiveness.

In some cases, residents prepared poisoned food baits using pesticides or other toxic materials because registered products were scarce or unaffordable. Such practices increased the risks of incorrect dosing, food contamination, and accidental poisoning. Poison baits placed openly on plates, paper, floors, or near food and water were particularly hazardous. Safer application required secured, clearly marked bait stations that prevented access by children, domestic animals, birds, and other non-target organisms. Baits also required regular inspection to assess consumption, deterioration, and evidence of rodent activity. Chemical control alone could not provide sustainable population suppression while food, water, and shelter remained abundant. Repeated or inappropriate application could also promote bait avoidance, accidental exposure, environmental contamination, secondary poisoning of predators, and rodenticide resistance.

4. Biological Control

Biological control involved the contribution of domestic and wild predators to rodent suppression. Domestic cats (Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758) were commonly kept or tolerated around houses, tents, farms, markets, shops, food-storage facilities, poultry units, and displacement camps (Figure 14). Their presence could deter or capture mice and young rats, although their effectiveness varied considerably. Native predators—including Barn Owls (Tyto alba Scopoli, 1769), Long-eared Owls (Asio otus Linnaeus, 1758), Common Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758), Long-legged Buzzards (Buteo rufinus Cretzschmar, 1829), Common Buzzards (Buteo buteo Linnaeus, 1758), Black-winged Kites (Elanus caeruleus Desfontaines, 1789), snakes such as the Syrian Black Snake, locally known as “Arbeed” (Dolichophis jugularis Linnaeus, 1758), and the Montpellier Snake, locally known as “Af‘a Al-Fi’ran” (Malpolon monspessulanus Hermann, 1804), Egyptian Mongooses (Herpestes ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758), and Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758)—may naturally contribute to regulating rodent populations (Figure 15). Protecting these predators and avoiding their unnecessary killing could support rodent management, particularly in agricultural and peri-urban environments. Nevertheless, biological control alone was insufficient to eliminate established rodent infestations in densely populated areas. Domestic cats could also be exposed to rodent-borne pathogens, ectoparasites, or secondary poisoning after consuming poisoned rodents. Biological control should therefore complement sanitation, rodent-proofing, trapping, and the safe use of rodenticides rather than replace these measures.

 

5. Behavioral and Educational Control

Behavioral control included daily practices undertaken by households, traders, farmers, and displaced residents to reduce rodent attraction and human exposure. These practices included closing food containers, cleaning spilled food, avoiding waste accumulation, inspecting stored commodities, keeping tent and house entrances closed, placing traps correctly, and preventing children from approaching traps or toxic baits. Public education was important for explaining how to recognize infestation signs, safely handle traps, protect food and water, dispose of carcasses, and report severely infested sites. Awareness activities were also needed to discourage bare-handed handling, indiscriminate poisoning, unsafe bait placement, and the use of fire, fuel, smoke, fumigants, or hazardous chemical mixtures. Clear instructions could be delivered by municipalities, environmental-health workers, humanitarian organizations, community volunteers, market administrations, health professionals, and local media. Simple illustrated guidance would be particularly useful for displaced families living under difficult conditions.

 

6. Community and Institutional Control

Municipal and institutional measures traditionally included waste collection, sewage and drainage maintenance, cleaning campaigns, treatment of markets and public facilities, distribution or application of rodenticides, and inspection of heavily infested locations. Municipalities, environmental-health departments, market administrations, agricultural authorities, humanitarian organizations, and pest-control workers represented the main institutional stakeholders. During the Israeli war, these activities were severely restricted by damaged roads and infrastructure, repeated displacement, unsafe access, and shortages of fuel, vehicles, equipment, traps, rodenticides, protective materials, and trained personnel. Nevertheless, several institutional actors cooperated to import appreciable quantities of rodenticides to help curb the steadily increasing rodent populations associated with the massive accumulation of solid waste and war-generated rubble [50]. However, treatment of individual sites was often followed by reinfestation from neighboring waste accumulations, rubble, sewage, or abandoned buildings, limiting the effectiveness of isolated chemical interventions. Community participation therefore became increasingly important. Coordinated cleaning campaigns, shared waste-storage points, collective food protection, reporting systems, and community-based distribution of traps and secure bait stations could improve control when municipal capacity was limited.

7. Surveillance and Monitoring

Surveillance depended on recognizing and recording direct rodent sightings and indirect evidence such as droppings, footprints, gnaw marks, grease marks, burrows, nests, damaged packages, unusual nighttime noises, and trap or bait activity. Markets, community kitchens, food-distribution points, warehouses, hospitals, schools, sewage systems, waste sites, and densely populated camps represented priority locations for monitoring. Monitoring should document the location, date, probable rodent species, observed signs, estimated infestation level, control method used, trap success, bait consumption, and evidence of reinfestation. Repeated inspection was necessary because the absence of visible rodents did not necessarily indicate successful control. Community reporting and simple surveillance records could help municipalities and humanitarian organizations identify infestation hotspots and direct limited control materials toward the most affected locations.

8. Integrated Pest Management

The findings indicated that no single method could provide effective and sustainable rodent control under the prevailing wartime conditions. Integrated Pest Management represented the most appropriate approach because it combined cultural, environmental, physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, educational, institutional, and surveillance measures. The first line of intervention should include sanitation, food and water protection, removal of harborages, structural repair, and rodent-proofing of tents and buildings. The second line should include surveillance, mechanical trapping, and direct treatment of identified infestation sites. Chemical control should be reserved for persistent or severe infestations and conducted with secure bait stations and appropriate supervision. Fumigation should be limited to exceptional situations managed by qualified and officially authorized personnel. Community education, stakeholder coordination, repeated monitoring, and evaluation should accompany all interventions. Such integration reduces dependence on rodenticides, limits risks to people and non-target animals, and improves the sustainability of rodent control in displacement camps and other war-affected communities of the Gaza Strip.

4. DISCUSSION

The findings show that commensal-rodent control in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ongoing war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023–2026) is not simply a matter of choosing a trap or poison. It is mainly an environmental and public-health problem caused by rubble, accumulated waste, damaged sewage and drainage systems, mass displacement, unsafe food storage, and weakened municipal services. Recent studies from the Gaza Strip have reported major damage to environmental and WASH infrastructure, worsening public-health conditions, and increased infestations of mice and other vertebrate pests in displacement camps [3] [44] [47] [48]. These conditions provide rodents with food, water, and shelter and help explain why household control often produces only temporary results. Rodent populations can recover through continued breeding or movement from nearby rubble, waste sites, sewers, markets, and abandoned buildings [6]. Therefore, repeated infestation after local treatment does not always mean that the trap or poison has failed.

Environmental sanitation and habitat management should form the basis of control. Removing food remains and nesting materials, protecting water sources, storing food in raised and sealed containers, and improving waste storage can make homes, tents, shops, and food facilities less suitable for rodents. Rodent-management studies consistently recommend combining sanitation and habitat modification with other measures rather than relying on poisons alone [51]. Household-based evidence from Lagos, Nigeria, similarly linked high rat infestation with poor sanitation practices and limited pest-control measures, while emphasizing food protection, improved household hygiene, and trapping as important components of control [52]. In the Gaza Strip, however, families may lack strong storage containers and sufficient water for cleaning, while municipal waste collection may be irregular or completely absent [44] [47]. Responsibility for control cannot therefore be placed on displaced Gazan families alone. Household sanitation must be supported by collective waste removal, drainage repair, rubble management, and protection of food-storage and distribution sites. Evidence from other resource-limited settings also indicates that coordinated habitat management is more reliable than isolated action [37] [53].

Structural exclusion is an important non-toxic measure because it reduces contact between rodents and people even when rodents remain common outdoors. Cement, metal sheets, strong wire mesh, door sweeps, and durable repairs may offer long-term protection in stable buildings. By contrast, fabric, cardboard, and soft wood are easily damaged or gnawed. Complete rodent-proofing is often impossible in damaged houses and tents. In displacement camps, reinforcing tent edges, closing entrances when possible, and separating stored food from sleeping areas should therefore be viewed as practical ways to reduce exposure. Exclusion measures should also reflect the species involved. Ground-level gaps, drains, sewers, and burrows are important for Norway Rats; roofs, ceilings, trees, cables, and other raised routes are more relevant to Black Rats; and the smaller House Mouse can enter through openings that exclude larger rats. Regional studies show that rodent communities and habitat use differ among locations [16] [54]-[56]. In North Sinai, Egypt, Farid et al. [57] similarly demonstrated that commensal rodent abundance and species composition varied with locality and season, with the Norway Rat being the dominant species, emphasizing the importance of considering local ecological conditions when planning rodent management. Control should therefore be adapted to the suspected species and site rather than applied in the same way everywhere.

Mechanical trapping is a useful second line of control when rodenticides are unavailable, expensive, or unsafe. Snap traps can quickly remove individual rodents, while cage, multiple-capture, tunnel-type, and improvised traps can support both control and monitoring. Their success depends on using enough traps, placing them along rodent pathways, selecting suitable bait, checking them often, and maintaining them properly [5] [58]. Rats may avoid new objects at first, so pre-baiting and careful placement may improve capture. House Mice are usually more willing to investigate unfamiliar traps. Locally made devices are especially useful during shortages, but weak construction and water-filled designs may create safety and animal-welfare problems. Glue boards also have important limitations: dust and moisture reduce their effectiveness, and captured animals may suffer for long periods. Snap traps or well-designed live traps should therefore be preferred where possible, with clear instructions for frequent inspection, safe handling, carcass disposal, and disinfection. Captured rodents may also provide specimens for species identification and parasite or pathogen surveillance [14] [15].

Rodenticides remain useful for severe or persistent infestations, but importing or distributing poison is not a complete solution. Poison-based programs may fail when only part of an infested area is treated or when surrounding habitats allow rapid reinvasion. For example, sewer baiting does not always reduce rodent activity at the surface [39]. Differences in the reported quality and effectiveness of products in the Gaza Strip may result from poor placement, damaged products, competing foods, bait avoidance, incomplete coverage, reinvasion, or physiological resistance. Egyptian studies have found different responses to active ingredients, bait formulations, and carriers [59]-[61], while anticoagulant-resistance mutations have been detected in Lebanon [42]. This does not prove resistance in the Gaza Strip, but it supports future susceptibility testing and avoiding repeated, unsupervised use of the same active ingredient.

Open poison is particularly dangerous in crowded displacement camps because children, domestic animals, birds, and native predators may be exposed. Chemical control should therefore use registered products with clear Arabic labels, tamper-resistant bait stations, records of bait use, carcass collection where possible, and professional supervision. These precautions can improve control while reducing the release of rodenticides into the environment [41] [43].

Natural predators can support rodent control but cannot replace sanitation, exclusion, and trapping. Domestic cats may catch House Mice and young rats, while owls, raptors, snakes, mongooses, and foxes may help reduce rodents in agricultural, coastal, and peri-urban habitats. Owls can also show considerable dietary and behavioral flexibility in human-modified and urban environments, allowing some species to exploit locally abundant prey, including commensal rats and House Mice [62]. Gaza Strip studies confirm the presence of several of these predators and terrestrial mammalian fauna are also well documented more broadly in Palestine [11] [63]-[69], and regional studies show that rodents are important prey for Barn Owls [70] [71]. More recently, Bontzorlos et al. [72] highlighted the Barn Owl (Tyto alba Scopoli, 1769) as a promising nature-based solution for rodent pest control across Mediterranean and other agroecosystems, emphasizing its strong dependence on small mammals, particularly rodents, and its potential to reduce reliance on chemical rodenticides. Long-term experience with Barn Owl nest-box programs has also demonstrated their practical acceptance by farmers; Peleg et al. [73] reported that farmers who were more satisfied with Barn Owl-based biological control maintained more nest boxes and breeding owls and reported greater reductions in rodent damage. However, Barn Owls are generalist predators, and their use as biological-control agents may also affect non-target small mammals, including rare or endangered rodent species occurring near agricultural or natural habitats. Therefore, programs designed to increase Barn Owl populations, particularly through artificial nest boxes, should consider local biodiversity and potential impacts on non-target prey [74]. Protecting native predators is better than killing them indiscriminately, especially because habitat destruction and secondary rodenticide poisoning may reduce their numbers.

Many forms of wildlife are deliberately killed by displaced people out of fear or because of limited awareness of their ecological benefits, as they are often mistakenly perceived as harmful or dangerous [63]. Recent examples documented during 2026 include the killing of Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758), Egyptian Mongooses (Herpestes ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758), various wild birds (Class Aves), and reptiles such as the Desert Monitor (Varanus griseus Daudin, 1803) and snakes, regardless of whether they are venomous or non-venomous. These include non-venomous species such as the Syrian Black Snake (Dolichophis jugularis Linnaeus, 1758), as well as venomous species such as the Palestine Viper (Daboia palaestinae Werner, 1938). Amphibians, including frogs such as the Levant Water Frog (Pelophylax bedriagae Camerano, 1882), may also be killed because of fear or misconceptions regarding their ecological roles [3]. Such indiscriminate killing may reduce populations of beneficial wildlife that naturally contributes to controlling rodents, insects, and other potential pests (Figure 16). However, large numbers of domestic or stray cats in crowded camps may create other animal-health, sanitation, and zoonotic risks. Predators also cannot overcome the unusually high supply of food and shelter created by rubble and waste. Biological control should therefore be treated as a supporting part of integrated pest management (IPM), not as an independent solution (Figure 17).

Public education is essential for the safe use of all control methods. Residents need simple guidance on recognizing rodent activity, placing traps along movement routes, protecting food and water, avoiding direct contact with rodents and their waste, wet-cleaning contaminated areas, and disposing of carcasses safely. This is important because rodents in the Gaza Strip have been found to carry gastrointestinal parasites and ectoparasites [14]. Similarly, Bahgat [75] documented diverse ectoparasites—including fleas, lice, mites, and ticks—on rodents captured inside and outside houses in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt, highlighting the potential importance of rodent ectoparasites in human-modified environments. More recent Egyptian surveys have likewise documented rodent-associated ectoparasites in animal farms in Minia Governorate [76] and in Toukh District, Qalyubia Governorate [77], further emphasizing the importance of monitoring ectoparasites alongside rodent populations. Studies elsewhere in the Middle East have reported helminths, ectoparasites, bacteria, and other zoonotic agents associated with rodents [23]-[25] [28] [78] [79]. Public awareness is equally important; a recent cross-sectional survey in North-Central Algeria assessed community knowledge of rodent-borne zoonoses, particularly leptospirosis, highlighting the need for greater public education about rodent-associated health risks [79]. The present study did not test pathogens and cannot conclude that infestation alone caused disease. Forced displacement, overcrowding, destruction of health infrastructure and deteriorating living conditions may further amplify infectious-disease risks among affected populations in the Gaza Strip [80]. Nevertheless, overcrowding, poor sanitation, disrupted healthcare, and other war-related deterioration in living conditions may substantially increase vulnerability to infectious diseases and the consequences of unsafe exposure [31] [45] [81] [82].

Risk communication is also needed to discourage unsafe practices such as killing rodents without protection, placing poison openly, or using fuel, fire, smoke, and improvised fumigants. Community participation may improve acceptance, reporting, and consistent application of control measures [29] [83]. Nature-conservation initiatives may also provide opportunities for environmental cooperation and community engagement; Mohr et al. [84], using the Barn Owl (Tyto alba Scopoli, 1769) as an example, emphasized the potential of shared conservation objectives to promote environmental bridge-building across communities. Short illustrated instructions and practical demonstrations may be more useful than long written materials for families living under severe stress and with limited access to formal information.

The findings also show that control must be coordinated across neighboring sites and institutions. Treating one tent, shop, market stall, or sewer opening while nearby shelters and food sources remain untreated is likely to be followed by rapid reinfestation. This agrees with research showing that rodents move among connected premises [6] [33]. Priority areas should include displacement camps, community kitchens, food-distribution points, markets, warehouses, hospitals, schools, waste accumulations, and damaged sewage networks. A practical program could combine hotspot mapping, synchronized cleaning, food and water protection, exclusion, trapping, and limited targeted baiting, followed by regular inspection.

Simple registers of sightings, droppings, burrows, trap captures, bait consumption, and repeated activity could help direct scarce staff and materials to the most affected sites. Population-based monitoring is also important because estimates of rodent abundance and changes in population dynamics can provide a useful basis for planning and evaluating control interventions, as demonstrated by Ahmed and Mohallal [85] in their study of rodents in the Western Desert of Egypt. Such monitoring is consistent with wider calls to strengthen WASH and disease-surveillance capacity in the Gaza Strip [47] [86]. Because infestation levels and access conditions may change quickly, success should be measured by lasting reductions in signs of activity and human exposure, not only by the number of rodents trapped or poisoned during a single campaign.

Overall, the findings support a tiered integrated peat management (IPM) strategy suited to humanitarian conditions. Immediate, low-cost actions should protect food, water, children, and sleeping areas. Site-level measures should remove shelter and food sources, close entry points, and use appropriate traps. Institutional measures should restore waste collection and drainage, manage rubble, organize surveillance, and reserve rodenticides for secure and supervised treatment of persistent hotspots. This approach combines environmental, physical, behavioral, biological, and chemical methods and reduces dependence on repeated poisoning [5] [35] [41]. The value of combining complementary rodent-management methods rather than relying on a single intervention has also been demonstrated in agricultural systems, where integrated approaches were recommended for sustainable vole population management in alfalfa fields [87]. Long-term control in the Gaza Strip will still require safe access, fuel, transport, equipment, trained workers, and cooperation among municipalities, humanitarian agencies, market administrations, health services, pest-control workers, and affected communities [30] [88].

This study has several limitations. It was descriptive, access was restricted by insecurity and repeated displacement, and observations were limited to accessible sites. Infestation levels, trapping success, bait consumption, rodenticide ingredients, and treatment outcomes were not measured through a standard experimental design. Species identification relied mainly on sightings and field signs rather than systematic trapping, detailed examination, or molecular confirmation. Stakeholder reports may also have been influenced by memory and personal perception. The study can therefore describe the available practices and their practical suitability, but it cannot compare or rank their effectiveness.

Future research should establish standard monitoring sites, identify captured rodents to species level, test susceptibility to commonly used rodenticides, evaluate locally made traps, and map infestations in relation to rubble, waste, sewage, food facilities, and displacement density. Surveillance of pathogens and ectoparasites is also needed because studies from the Gaza Strip, the wider region, and other war-affected settings have shown that commensal rodents and other small mammals may harbor medically important parasites, microorganisms, and zoonotic agents of potential public-health significance [14] [25] [28] [89]-[91[. In Iraq, rodents were reported to harbor zoonotic and nonzoonotic endoparasites [90], while House Mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) in Erbil were found to carry both ectoparasites and endoparasites [92]. In Afghanistan, House Mice dominated small-mammal communities at military bases, and small mammals were identified as reservoirs for several zoonotic agents [93] [94]. However, the occurrence, prevalence, and transmission of such infectious agents under the current conditions of the Gaza Strip must be demonstrated directly and should not be assumed from findings reported elsewhere.

5. CONCLUSION

Commensal-rodent infestations in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ongoing war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023–2026) have been driven by rubble, waste accumulation, sewage disruption, food insecurity, overcrowding, damaged buildings, and weakened municipal services. Effective control requires a locally adapted integrated pest management (IPM) approach combining sanitation, structural exclusion, trapping, careful rodenticide use, predator protection, community participation, and surveillance. Coordinated action across households, displacement camps, markets, and institutions is essential to reduce reinfestation and protect people, food supplies, domestic animals, and wildlife. Restoring waste collection, drainage, rubble management, and surveillance remains fundamental. Further studies are needed to assess infestation levels, rodent species, control effectiveness, rodenticide resistance, and rodent-borne pathogens.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges all individuals who contributed to this study under the exceptionally difficult conditions in the Gaza Strip. Special thanks are extended to displaced Gazans living in tents and amid the rubble of destroyed homes, enduring the environmental, public-health, and psychological impacts of commensal rodents and other vertebrate and invertebrate pests. Appreciation is also extended to municipal and environmental-health personnel, pest-control workers, traders, farmers, food vendors, local residents, colleagues, and other stakeholders who shared information, facilitated field visits, or contributed photographic documentation. Their cooperation despite Israel’s ongoing war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023–2026) and mass displacement was invaluable to this study.

REFERENCES

1. Fiedler, L. A. (2018). Rodent problems in Africa. In I. Prakash (Ed.), Rodent Pest Management (pp. 35–65). CRC Press.
2. Gratz, N. G. (2018). Rodents and human disease: A global appreciation. In I. Prakash (Ed.), Rodent Pest Management (pp. 101–169). CRC Press.
3. Abd Rabou, A. N., Elhabiby, M. I., Gafar, M. F., Alfera, Y. M., El-Hindi, M. W., Ibrahim, Y. K., Al-Banna, M. S., Idais, R. H., Tanboura, A. A., Alsalibi, T. M., Qaraman, A. A., Al-Agha, M. R., Abd Rabou, M. A., Dardona, A. W., Shawa, S. S., Abd Rabou, O. A., Tayeh, B. A., Rabah, F. K., Abualtayef, M. T., … Yassin, M. M. (2026). Vertebrate pest outbreaks in Gaza displacement camps under conditions of Israeli war of genocide and ethnic cleansing (2023–2026): Ecological drivers, public health risks, and humanitarian impacts. Journal of Diversity Studies, 5(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.51470/JOD.2026.5.2.05
4. Greaves, J. H. (1989). Rodent pests of agriculture and their control in the Near East region. Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 7(1), 75–82.
5. Meyer, A. N., & Kaukeinen, D. E. (2015). Rodent control in practice: Protection of humans and animal health. In A. P. Buckle & R. H. Smith (Eds.), Rodent Pests and Their Control (2nd ed., pp. 231–246). CABI.
6. Cowan, D. P., Quy, R. J., & Lambert, M. S. (2003). Ecological perspectives on the management of commensal rodents. ACIAR Monograph Series, 96, 433–439.
7. Belmaker, M., & Brown, A. B. (2016). A new look at “On Mice and Men”: Should commensal species be used as a universal indicator of early sedentism? In Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia (pp. 25–43). Oxbow Books.
8. Weissbrod, L., Marshall, F. B., Valla, F. R., Khalaily, H., Bar-Oz, G., Auffray, J. C., … & Cucchi, T. (2017). Origins of house mice in ecological niches created by settled hunter-gatherers in the Levant 15,000 y ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16), 4099–4104.
9. Marom, N., & Weissbrod, L. (2018). Mammalian community assembly in ancient villages and towns in the Jordan Valley of Israel. In C. Greenfield (Ed.), Multispecies Archaeology (pp. 183–197). Routledge.
10. Yassin, M. M., Abd Rabou, A. F. N., & Al-Agha, M. R. (2006). Preliminary survey of terrestrial vertebrate fauna and people’s awareness towards wildlife in the Northern Governorate of the Gaza Strip. Al-Azhar Bulletin of Science, 17(1-C), 17–40.
11. Abd Rabou, A. N., Yassin, M. M., Al-Agha, M. R., Hamad, D. M., & Ali, A. S. (2007). Wild mammals in the Gaza Strip, with particular reference to Wadi Gaza. The Islamic University Journal (Series of Natural Studies and Engineering), 15(1), 87–109.
12. Abd Rabou, A. N., Al-Harazeen, H. R., Khogali, F. A., Rabaa, F. M., Hamad, D. M., Ali, A. S., & Madkour, W. F. (2022). Notes on the non-flying mammalian fauna characterizing both sides of the Green Line; the de facto border between the Gaza Strip and historic Palestine. Israa University Journal of Applied Science, 6(1), 191–227.
13. Wilamowski, A., Moran, S., & Greenburg, Z. (2002). Commensal rodents and their parasites in Israel. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Urban Pests, 103–112.
14. Al-Hindi, A. I., & Abu-Haddaf, E. (2013). Gastrointestinal parasites and ectoparasites biodiversity of Rattus rattus trapped from Khan Younis and Jabalia in Gaza Strip, Palestine. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 43(1), 259–268.
15. Farid, D. S., Abouelhassan, E. M., El-Sebae, A. A., Enany, M. E., & Youssef, A. I. (2021). Ectoparasite fauna of commensal rodents collected from the North Sinai governorate, Egypt and its public health significance. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 9(4), 563–570.
16. Farid, D. S., Sallam, N. H., Eldein, A. M. S., & Soliman, E. S. (2021). Cross-sectional seasonal prevalence and relative risk of ectoparasitic infestations of rodents in North Sinai, Egypt. Veterinary World, 14(11), 2996–3004.
17. Abd Rabou, A.N. (2020): The Palestinian marine and terrestrial vertebrate fauna preserved at the Biology Exhibition, Islamic University of Gaza, bombarded by the Israeli Army in December, 2008. Israa University Journal of Applied Science (IUGAS), 4(1): 9-51.
18. Abd Rabou, A.N.; Musallam, N.J.; Musallam, E.J.; Elkahlout, K.E.; Elnabris, K.J.; El-Bashiti, T.A.; Abdel Aziz, I.I; Ishneiwra, R.M.; Radwan, E.S.; Saada, H.S.; Shafei, A.A.; Fayyad, N.A.; Mwafy, S.N.; Abu Amra, H.E.; Abu Al-Ajeen, R.A.; Abu Owda, M.F.; Alfarra, R.N.; Hassouna, H.A.; Hassouna, R.A.; Al-Agha, M.R. and Abd Rabou, M.A. (2020): The Palestinian terrestrial vertebrate fauna preserved at the biology exhibitions of the universities of the Gaza Strip. Research in Ecology, 2(4): 9-21.
19. 19. Abd Rabou A.N.; El-Kichaoui, A.Y.; El-Bashiti, T.A.; Abdel Aziz, I.I.; Elnabris, K.J.; Aliwaini, S.H.; Abed, A.A.; Elkahlout, K.E.; Abu-Jadallah, S.Y.; Almabhouh, F.A.; Alattar, E.M.; Fayyad, N.A.; Shafei, A.A.; El-Hindi, M.W.; Al-Sweirki, S.H.; Alkhaldi, S.L.; Bakheet, B.A.; Abu Toima, R.M.; Ashour, L.Z.; Qaraman, A.W.; Abu Amra, H.E.; Aziz, A.Y.; Rifi, M.M.; Benmessaoud, R.M.; Cherif, M.M.; Abd Rabou, O.A.; Abd Rabou, A.A.; Abd Rabou, O.A.; Khalaf, N.A.;  Salah, J.Y.; Aboutair, M.A.; Awadalah, S.M.; Saqallah, W.M.; Al-Agha, M.R.; Shabat, M.M. and Jadallah, R.I. (2025): On the mummified marine and terrestrial vertebrate fauna adorning the Biology Department Museum at the Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza Strip, Palestine, before the Israeli war on October 7, 2023. Open Journal of Ecology (OJE), 15(9): ,528-568.
20. Battersby, S. A. (2015). Rodents as carriers of disease. In A. P. Buckle & R. H. Smith (Eds.), Rodent pests and their control (2nd ed., pp. 81–100). CABI International. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0081
21. Helmy, Y. A., El-Adawy, H., & Abdelwhab, E. M. (2017). A comprehensive review of common bacterial, parasitic and viral zoonoses at the human-animal interface in Egypt. Pathogens, 6(3), Article 33.
22. Dahmana, H., Granjon, L., Diagne, C., Davoust, B., Fenollar, F., & Mediannikov, O. (2020). Rodents as hosts of pathogens and related zoonotic disease risk. Pathogens, 9(3), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9030202
23. Islam, M. M., Farag, E., Eltom, K., Hassan, M. M., Bansal, D., Schaffner, F., … & Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z. (2021). Rodent ectoparasites in the Middle East: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pathogens, 10(2), Article 139.
24. Islam, M. M., Farag, E., Mahmoudi, A., Hassan, M. M., Mostafavi, E., Enan, K. A., … & Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z. (2021). Rodent-related zoonotic pathogens at the human–animal–environment interface in Qatar: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), Article 5928.
25. Islam, M. M., Farag, E., Hassan, M. M., Enan, K. A., Mohammad Sabeel, K. V., Alhaddad, M. M., … & Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z. (2022). Diversity of bacterial pathogens and their antimicrobial resistance profile among commensal rodents in Qatar. Veterinary Research Communications, 46(2), 487–498.
26. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2026). Medically and public health–important arthropods in Gaza Strip displacement camps during the Israeli war (2023–2026): Documented and potential occurrence, ecological drivers, health risks, and humanitarian implications. Journal of Diversity Studies, 5(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.51470/JOD.2026.5.2.112
27. Islam, M. M., Farag, E., Hassan, M. M., Bansal, D., Awaidy, S. A., Abubakar, A., … & Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z. (2020). Helminth parasites among rodents in the Middle East countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Animals, 10(12), Article 2342.
28. Islam, M. M., Farag, E., Hassan, M. M., Enan, K. A., Mohammadi, A., Aldiqs, A. K., … & Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z. (2024). Rodent-borne parasites in Qatar: A possible risk at the human-animal-ecosystem interface. One Health, 18, 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100708
29. Panti-May, J. A., Sodá-Tamayo, L., Gamboa-Tec, N., Cetina-Franco, R., Cigarroa-Toledo, N., Machaín-Williams, C., … & Hernández-Betancourt, S. F. (2017). Perceptions of rodent-associated problems: An experience in urban and rural areas of Yucatan, Mexico. Urban Ecosystems, 20(5), 983–988.
30. Shorrab, A., Nassef, M., Subhi, A., Giwa, B., & Buheji, M. (2024). Health in the crossfire-analyzing and mitigating the multifaceted health risks of the 2023 war on Gaza. Public Health Research, 14(1), 1–11.
31. Boussaa, S., Dardona, Z., & Amane, M. (2025). Challenges and risk factors for infectious diseases in Gaza due to the current conflict. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 31(2), 127–133.
32. Muñoz-Hernández, C., & Gonzálvez, M. (2026). The role of infectious diseases and non-violent mortality prediction in armed conflicts. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 92(1), 1–11.
33. Almeida, A., Corrigan, R., & Sarno, R. (2013). The economic impact of commensal rodents on small businesses in Manhattan’s Chinatown: Trends and possible causes. Suburban Sustainability, 1(1), Article 2.
34. Buckle, A. P., & Smith, R. H. (Eds.). (2015). Rodent pests and their control (2nd ed.). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0000
35. Rachid, A. K. K. I., & Errabhi, N. (2026). Rodents in North African agriculture: Ecological roles, economic impacts, and management strategies. Moroccan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(1), 93–104.
36. Meyer, A. N. (2003). Urban commensal rodent control: Fact or fiction? ACIAR Monograph Series, 96, 446–450.
37. Robinson, J. (2005). Pests and integrated pest management in western Equatoria, southern Sudan. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 25(4), 224–235.
38. Selemani, M., Katakweba, A. S., Motto, S. K., & Makundi, R. H. (2026). Methods for rodent control to prevent zoonotic diseases: A systematic review of studies from Africa. Zoonotic Diseases, 6(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/zoonoticdis6010004
39. Mughini Gras, L., Patergnani, M., & Farina, M. (2012). Poison-based commensal rodent control strategies in urban ecosystems: Some evidence against sewer-baiting. EcoHealth, 9(1), 75–79.
40. Geduhn, A., Jacob, J., Schenke, D., Keller, B., Kleinschmidt, S., & Esther, A. (2015). Relation between intensity of biocide practice and residues of anticoagulant rodenticides in Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes). PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0139191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139191
41. Blažić, T., Stojnić, B., Milanović, S., & Jokić, G. (2024). A strategy to improve rodent control while reducing rodenticide release into the environment. Heliyon, 10(8), e29312.
42. Rached, A., Abi Rizk, G., Mahamat, A. B., Khoury, G. E., El Hage, J., Harran, E., & Lattard, V. (2022). Investigation of anticoagulant rodenticide resistance induced by Vkorc1 mutations in rodents in Lebanon. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 22502.
43. Jokić, G., & Blažić, T. (2024). Management of harmful rodents: Can we do more? Zaštita Bilja, 75(1), 6–8.
44. Abuawad, A., Griffiths, M., Edwards, G. H., Eftekhari, A., Al-Ebweini, M., Al-Najar, H., … & Aker, A. (2025). The ongoing environmental destruction and degradation of Gaza: The resulting public health crisis. American Journal of Public Health, 115(7), 1053–1061.
45. Abuzerr, S., Zinszer, K., & Mahmoud, H. (2025). Healthcare collapse and disease spread: A qualitative study of challenges in Gaza Strip. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 589.
46. Fersari, T. P., & Salha, J. A. (2025). The collapse of water, sanitation, and hygiene systems in Gaza: Public health implications and global security perspectives. Indonesian Red Crescent Humanitarian Journal, 4(2), 117–129.
47. Turkman, N., Ibrahim, M. S., Ayyad, D., Alfarra, M., & Qurie, M. (2026). Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) crisis in Gaza: A case study of public health collapse and governance failure. Journal of Water and Health, 24(1), 89–102.
48. Dardona, Z., & Boussaa, S. (2025). Insect and mice infestations in Gaza displacement camps: A field‐based study on vector‐borne diseases amid the 2023–2025 Gaza war. Public Health Challenges, 4(4), e70127.
49. Zinszer, K., & Abuzerr, S. (2024). Water, sanitation, and hygiene insecurity and infectious disease outbreaks among internally displaced populations in Gaza: Implications of conflict-driven displacement on public health. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 14(11), 1182–1192.
50. The Times of Israel (2026): Israel says it coordinated delivery of rat pesticides to Gaza to counter infestation (May 7, 2026): https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-coordinated-delivery-of-rat-pesticides-to-gaza-to-counter-infestation/
51. Desoky, A.S.S., Ali, A.M., Abd El-Gawad, K.H., & Abdel-Galil, F.A. (2006). Management strategies for rodents within different ecosystems (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
52. Umoren, O. D., Friday, K. C., Chukwuma, O. D., Akinbola, S., & Onyeaghala, C. (2022). Cockroach and rat infestations in selected households: Case study of Bariga Local Council Development Area (LCDA), Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 12(3), 114–128.
53. Baghdadi, S. S., & Desoky, A. S. (2021). Using some rodent control methods in pomegranate orchards (Punica granatum) at Sohag Governorate-Egypt. Al-Azhar Journal of Agricultural Research, 46(2), 191–195.
54. Ali, A.M. (1978). The changing rodent pest fauna in Egypt. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 8, 8–13.
55. Mahmoud, K. A., Metwally, A. M., Mangoud, A. A. H., & Mohamed, A. S. (2008). Survey of commensal rodents and their fleas in different Egyptian agro-ecosystems. Journal of Agricultural Research, 6, 2105–2116.
56. Mostfa, N. M., Shahawy, W. A., & Gazzy, A. A. (2018). Survey and relative occurrence of rodent species at Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology, 9(10), 629–632.
57. Farid, D. S., El-Sebae, A. A., & Youssef, A. I. (2021). Epidemiological investigations and ecological impacts of commensal rodents at the North Sinai, Egypt. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 9(10), 1511–1516.
58. Brooks, J. E., & Jackson, W. B. (1973). A review of commensal rodents and their control. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 3(1-4), 405–453.
59. Desoky, A.S.S. (2016). Rodenticide use in rodent control in Upper Egypt: An overview. Global Journal of Life Sciences and Biological Research, 2(2), 25–27.
60. Mikhail, M. W., & Hasan, A. H. (2016). Response of dominant rodents to Coumatetralyl and Bromadiolone in Greater Cairo, Egypt. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 46(3), 557–562.
61. Rizk, A. M., Eisa, Y. A. E., & Abdel-Azeem, M. I. (2017). Survey of rodent species at three habitats and control it by use change base carrier of zinc phosphide bait technique in Sohag Governorate. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, B. Zoology, 9(1), 11–18.
62. Mikkola, H., & Sieradzki, A. (2025). Adaptation of owls to urban life: A review of owls’ dietary and behavioral responses to worldwide anthropogenic challenges and environmental change. In L. Son (Ed.), Research Perspective on Biological Science (Vol. 9, pp. 32–78). BP International. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/rpbs/v9/6617
63. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2005). An ecological survey and assessment of Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, Gaza Strip – Palestine, with particular emphasis on wildlife (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Environmental Studies, School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan, 278 pp.
64. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2009). On the occurrence of some carnivores in the Gaza Strip, Palestine (Mammalia: Carnivora). Zoology in the Middle East, 46(1), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2009.10638332
65. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2019). On the occurrence, ecology and risks of the Egyptian Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758) in the Gaza Strip – Palestine. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, 23(2), 267–276.
66. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2019). The mammalian, reptilian and amphibian fauna of Al-Mawasi ecosystem, south-western Gaza Strip – Palestine. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, 23(1), 301–314.
67. Abd Rabou, A.N. (2019): Ornithofauna prevailing at Al-Mawasi ecosystem of the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Open Journal of Ecology (OJE), 9(9): 360-400.
68. Abd Rabou, A. N. (2020). On the Owls (Order Strigiformes) Inhabiting the Gaza Strip-Palestine. JOJ Wildlife & Biodiversity, 2(4), 101–114.
69. Albaba, I. (2016). The terrestrial mammals of Palestine: A preliminary checklist. International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 3(4), 28–35.
70. Baker, M. A., Qarqaz, M., & Amr, Z. S. (2005). Diet of the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in Shaumari Wildlife Reserve, eastern Jordan. Journal of the National Museum, Natural History Series, 174, 125–127.
71. Eid, E., Juma, Z., Alayyan, M. F., & Abu Baker, M. (2020). Prey composition of the Barn Owl Tyto alba in citrus agriculture of the Jordan River, Jordan. Jordan Journal of Natural History, 7(1), 12–18.
72. Bontzorlos, V., Cain, S., Leshem, Y., Spiegel, O., Motro, Y., Bloch, I., … & Roulin, A. (2024). Barn owls as a Nature-Based solution for pest control: A multinational initiative around the Mediterranean and other regions. Conservation, 4(4), 627-656.
73. Peleg, O., Nir, S., Leshem, Y., Meyrom, K., Aviel, S., Charter, M., … & Izhak, I. (2018). Three decades of satisfied Israeli farmers: Barn Owls (Tyto alba) as biological pest control of rodents. In Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference (Vol. 28, No. 28).
74. Zaitzove‐Raz, M., Comay, O., Motro, Y., & Dayan, T. (2020). Barn owls as biological control agents: Potential risks to non‐target rare and endangered species. Animal Conservation, 23(6), 646-659.
75. Bahgat, I. M. (2013). Monthly abundance of rodent and their ectoparasites in newly settled areas, east of lakes, Ismailia Governorate, Egypt. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 43(2), 387–398.
76. El Roby, A. S., Hassan, H. M., Eshbah, H. M., & Abd Elhakeem, A. A. E. (2022). Survey of rodents and their ecto-parasites at some animal farms in Minia Governorate, Egypt. Journal of Modern Research, 4(1), 1–5.
77. Elbath, M. A., Nagah, A. M., Elrashidy, M. H., & El-Sawy, M. F. (2026). Incidence of ectoparasites associated with rodents in Toukh District, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, E. Medical Entomology & Parasitology, 18(1), 43–48.
78. Hamarsheh, O., & Amro, A. (2019). Epidemiology of parasitic infections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestine. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(2), 313–322.
79. Lekhal, L., Medrouh, B., Boukert, R., Kaidi, R., & Khelef, D. (2026). Poll study for cross-sectional analysis of population data on rodent zoonoses, specifically Leptospirosis, in the North-Central region of Algeria. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 57(2), 269–279.
80. Norberg, P. R. B. M., Norberg, A. N., Ferreira Filho, R. M., & Faial, L. C. M. (2024). Proposals for the forced displacement of the population from the Gaza Strip and the geopolitical spectrum of a global public health tragedy. Journal of Global Public Health Studies, 3(2), 89–104.
81. Hussein, S., Ahmed, S. K., Qurbani, K., Fareeq, A., & Essa, R. A. (2024). Infectious diseases threat amidst the war in Gaza. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, Article 100067.
82. Farhadi, N., Yarahmadi, A., & Afkhami, H. (2026). Infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance in the Gaza Strip: Epidemiological drivers, health system disruptions, and global implications: A narrative review. Health Science Reports, 9(5), e72074.
83. Alnaimi, I. A., Yamani, I. A. J., & Alkhatib, A. J. (2025). Hantavirus beyond virology: Social determinants, risk perception, and community engagement in rodent-borne disease prevention. Journal of Community Health Research, 14(1), 45–56.
84. Mohr, C., Le Billon, P., Leshem, Y., Bontzorlos, V., & Roulin, A. (2026). Environmental Bridge-building: Connecting People through Nature Conservation. The Example of the Barn Owl. Ecology and Evolution, 16(7), e73795.
85. Ahmed, H. A., & Mohallal, E. M. (2024). A comprehensive study on the population dynamics of stray dogs, wild foxes, and rodents in the Western Desert of Egypt. African Journal of Biological Sciences, 20(2), 17–32.
86. Abuzerr, S. (2025). Challenges and innovations in WASH and disease surveillance in conflict zones: Lessons from the Gaza Strip. In Global Health Surveillance-What the 21st Century Holds in Store for Us. IntechOpen.
87. Haim, A., Shanas, U., Brandes, O., & Gilboa, A. (2007). Suggesting the use of integrated methods for vole population management in alfalfa fields. Integrative zoology, 2(3), 184-190.
88. Ashour, Y., AbuJlambo, A., & Hassoun, A. (2025). Gaza’s health emergency: Unprecedented humanitarian impact of the recent war on public health. In War on Gaza: Consequences on Sustainability and Global Security (pp. 43–58). Springer Nature Switzerland.
89. Morick, D., Baneth, G., Avidor, B., Kosoy, M. Y., Mumcuoglu, K. Y., Mintz, D., … & Harrus, S. (2009). Detection of Bartonella spp. in wild rodents in Israel using HRM real-time PCR. Veterinary Microbiology, 139(3-4), 293–297.
90. Hasson, R. H. (2010). Zoonotic and nonzoonotic endoparasites of rodents from some districts in Baghdad. Diyala Journal for Pure Sciences, 6(3), 102–112.
91. Abi Said, M., Maroun, T., & Shaib, H. (2025). Intestinal parasites in rodents from five different Himas in Lebanon. Helminthologia, 62(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.2478/helm-2025-0011
92. Malla, T. K., & Saida, L. A. (2022). A survey of ecto and endo-parasites of House Mouse (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) of Erbil City, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Bulletin of the Iraq Natural History Museum, 17(2), 267-290.
93. Gertler, C., Schlegel, M., Linnenbrink, M., Hutterer, R., König, P., Ehlers, B., Fischer, K., Ryll, R., Lewitzki, J., Sauer, S., Baumann, K., Breithaupt, A., Faulde, M., Teifke, J. P., Tautz, D., & Ulrich, R. G. (2017). Indigenous house mice dominate small mammal communities in northern Afghan military bases. BMC Zoology, 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-017-0024-z
94. Essbauer, S., Baumann, K., Schlegel, M., Faulde, M. K., Lewitzki, J., Sauer, S. C., Frangoulidis, D., Riehm, J. M., Dobler, G., Teifke, J. P., Meyer, H., & Ulrich, R. G. (2022). Small mammals as reservoir for zoonotic agents in Afghanistan. Military Medicine, 187(1–2), e189–e196. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usab008