[Technogeeb]

Well, the Persians also conquered and enslaved Israel in the first place

Nope; that was the Babylonians who did that.

and if my Purim over-consuptions didn’t cloud my memory too much

Probably just a bit. The time of Haman was under Darius, which was a couple of generations later. Under Cyrus, Daniel was essentially the prime minister, and even under Darius Esther was considered his favorite and named Queen. Those two positions aren't exactly held by the oppressed.

[MeanWestTexan]

Fair enough, I (apparently unfairly) tend to lump them together!

That said, both the “Haman” episode and the treatment of Daniel cloud my judgment . . .

[SolidWood]

Well, yes the Persian kings after all were still arbitrary rulers and had their whims. Daniel however was rehabilitated and acknowledged by the King. (It is written that Cyrus decreed "the God of Daniel" be respected and Daniel "prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian") (@technogeeb: Haman is generally considered to be under the reign of Xerxes (Ahasuerus in Esther).

In any case the Bible is very clear that of all foreign rules, the Persian rule was the most tolerant (also in religion), lax and beneficial, not at least because of the federalism and authonomy granted by the Persian kings. Aramaeic even became the lingua franca of the Persian empire and Jews served as local sub-kings in Persia (even outside of Israel/Judea).

Very different from the murderous Assyrian and Babylonian enslavement and later the hated Greek and Roman yoke, against which the Jews rebelled.

It is interesting to note the very different perspectives on the Persians from Jewish/Biblical perspective on the one hand, and the Greek perception on the other.