More on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute

" ... these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. ... per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status."
--http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

Here is the counter-argument:
"Before 1970, the People’s Republic of China did not merely acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China demanded self-determination for the U.S.-administered Ryukyu Islands, with an option of return to Japanese administration, while specifically including the “Senkaku Islands”. Thus, China agreed with the United States and Japan that, in the event of the Ryukyu Islands’ return to Japanese administration, the United States should also return the Senkaku Islands to Japan."
--http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/the-diaoyusenkaku-islands-a-japanese-scholar-responds/

In other words, the islands are basically part of the Ryuku Islands, the biggest one of which is Okinawa.  One of these, Yonaguni Island, is much closer to Taiwan (67km) than to Okinawa (509km), and is closer than the Senkaku Islands are to Taiwan.  So if Japan were to give up the Senkaku islands would they have to give up others as well?  The only difference is that the Senkaku islands are not populated.

=======================
Update:  China is calling for control of Okinawa as well.
"The Global Times, the newspaper run by China’s Communist Party, ran an editorial this month suggesting that Beijing challenge Japan’s control of Okinawa, part of the Ryukyu island chain."
--http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/gordon-g-chang/china-now-claims-japan%E2%80%99s-okinawa