Okay, so I don't consider @psergeant's comment to be the most open, but he is suggesting it only because WP:ANB is (specifically, Guy's initial proposal).

> George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. (from Guy)

> Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". (from KalHolmann)

So, while this comment does seem a but unjustified, it is validated by the initial requests to refer to ArbCom.

That he considers activism for Palestine "pro-war" is telling in and of itself.

I'm reading it as "'anti-war' is too general to describe someone who's mainly an activist for Palestine and supporting Russia's involvement in Syria is actually 'pro-war'".