I get that having issues on AWS is irritating; I exist in that ecosystem too. But...I really can't fault them for this, or claim that they're lying. AWS says to not rely on any one AZ being up and/or reachable, and yet you did. And the fact it caused problems for you means you want them saying the entire region is down. Why? They make regions be fault tolerant by having multiple AZs; they guarantee reliability at the region level, not at the AZ level, and that's what the status page is intended to track.
Now, I can see wanting a clear status page per AZ, rather than just a blue 'i'. That's a valid request. But -request- that, don't claim that they're lying. You're being antagonistic despite them doing everything they've promised, and their status page being correct (just not using the colors you would like because they view severity differently than you).
In terms of your cluster, it takes a lot of testing and tweaking to ensure your cluster can reach consensus during partial/sporadic partitions. But it can and should be done if you need high availability (e.g. take nodes out of the cluster if they keep disconnecting, until they have a stable connection for X minutes).
But it is going too far to call this a "lie" on the part of AWS. If you talk to any AWS customer support representative, or read their docs, they are very clear that the unit of availability for their service is a region, not a zone.
Notice that the status update said "connectivity issues in a single Availability Zone".
If you are deploying in a single AZ, and your app is not tolerant to at least one AZ failure, then you should not be telling your customers/boss that your app is highly available. That's not the fault of AWS, it's how you're using AWS.
With that said, I do think that AWS could do two things: 1) maybe show a yellow warning sign instead of a blue "i", for something that borks an entire AZ, and 2) make it even more clear that each AZ is not high-availability.