Writing "for Israel" was meant to bring a certain point of view. The article didn't state it as a fact. People usually see a bias in a news report according to their own views.
And yes, what can you do, many of the Palestinian prisoners released had a role in planning and executing terror attacks that killed many people inside Israel. It's estimated that 60% of the prisoners released in previous deals returned to engage in terrorist activity (or to be freedom fighters if you may wish). Sure, Israel's authorities are not saints either, but all of those prisoners had the right for Red Cross visits, family visits under certain constrains, their imprisonment condition were monitored by the UN, they had access to higher education and by looking at their appearance on the day of release they received sufficient amounts of food and water. All of the above wasn't meant not to brag of course, it's just the basics.
Gilad Shalit, on the other hand, was held in an unknown place, no one knows in what conditions he lived in for the past five years, he was held in isolation and could only communicate with few of his captives, the Red Cross was not allowed to visit him - not to mention his family. The only sign of life from him was a video tape released two years ago. I don't know what they did to him, but when watching him yesterday I couldn't help thinking that he looked like a holocaust survivor.