Ad networks apply editorial oversight with respect to their own published policies* I am not aware of any ad network policies that approach the subject of "what is true" or "what is propaganda". They also apply restrictions to what they are legally liable for which is fairly narrow today (I.e. child porn or harmful substances to minors, etc)

Forcing ad networks to be the main arbiters of what is true vs. propaganda is a huge step towards an Orwellian society.

* some policies related to the concept of truth are one dealing with scams or fraudsters. Even then, it's only the scope of "does this advertiser actually provide the service they claim to be" or not, which is way more objective than anything related to war, religion, or the middle east.

> I am not aware of any ad network policies that approach the subject of "what is true" or "what is propaganda".

From the article:

> The ad mimicked a UN website but actually linked to an Israeli government page

You don't need to judge wether the information linked is true to judge whether the ad misrepresents what users will find behind the link. If Pepsi made ads using a fake Coca Cola website to redirect to pepsi products, they would run afoul of google's policy regardless of your opinion on Pepsi.

Whether you think this enforcement choice is legitimate or not, as you said, it's clearly an editorial choice from google, and there's no reason it should escape public scrutiny and, if needed, regulation.