To the average Palestinian, I imagine they would say it's the same thing, but the UN resolution provides legitimacy to the formation of Israel. Expansion immediately afterwards can be 'pseudo justified' as the 'spoils of war' especially as those aggressed upon, but continued annexation against occupied people who they should be trying to reach a peace agreement with isn't right to me.
It's very similar.
The UN resolution was almost all European countries, undoubtedly horrified at what they had just seen on their continent, north and south American countries, who's people's and governments were created by centuries of European settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing and several countries elsewhere who came upon heavy pressure from the USA, in various ways, to vote for the resolution. The zionists from memory managed to filibuster the original vote date to allow the Americans to apply more pressure, as it may not have initially passed.
As I said, in reality it changes nothing now because there's no going back in time and international relations is rarely fair.
But I don't see anything fundamentally morally different between displacing a Palestinian in the 1940s and displacing a Palestinian in the 2020s. These are still the spoils of war. The Palestinians are weak. They're losing. So what's the difference?
Main people able to accept that link seem to be the settlers still displacing them.