Zizek may be somewhat accurate in objecting to the "Pittsburgh Hegelians" (and their...analytical approach to GWFH's thought) yet he reads Hegel via his own biases (ie, Lacanian, for one) does he not.
SZ's concept of "the gap", for one, seems...fundamentally non-Hegelian (in brief), probably closer to the Kantian model.
At the same time it can hardly be denied that Hegel (at least the philosopher-historian) did champion progress (and nationalism, military power, etc) and seems optimistic, if not nearly "futurist" in a sense, a point SZ overlooks. After the 20th cenutry (and Hegelians, links und rechts) one might speculate whether Schopenhauer's critiques (SZ typically dismisses Schop. in a sentence) of the militaristic and statist, and really macho aspects of GWFH were completely off-base...Schopenhauer understood entropy (unlike naive Hegelian and marxist statists).
This sounds correct however: """One thing is sure: [Hegel] would not simply take side of liberalism, but would insisted on the “mediation” of the opposites."""
I have the Parallax View, and have slogged through most of it. In a sense I don't think SZ really embraces Hegel's...modification of the Kantian system or Antinomies, but ...still retains a bit of the dualism inherent to the phenomena/noumena distinction (and to the deduction, where Kant makes use of Descartes' Res Cogitans). In brief. SZ doesn't resolve the incompatibilism (as Hegel...attempts), but starts into Lacan, the object petite a, the je ne sais quoi, marxism, the great rhetorical obfuscations. That is not Hegel, to me (and I could locate some Hegelians who would agree, I believe, and who would not appreciate the psychologizing).
Not to be cynical (or, contra-revolutionary as like Schopenhauer, the bourgeois fatalist!), but as with many old leftists Zizek doesn't really address the issues posed by Freedom vs Nature, but just moves ahead, for the real power of the Hegelian system relates to the politics, to the concrete-izing. The abstract contradictions are externalized, and somehow (rather mysteriously) the dialectic becomes objective in history (and really nature itself), and so....you can march with Stalin, or Hitler and write history, or not; Hegel is your aeroplane. The machiavellian aspects (and ..even Father Aristotle did not forget to praise the strong man, though not to the degree of Hegel, or Mach.) replace the metaphysical (usually ...surreptiously); those who disagree are bourgeois, retrograde, or perhaps ...chandala. (..at least there is something like Reality, ever becoming, unlike Kant's noumena...). SZ doesn't seem even overly interested in the process or temporality issues---.