We've had such debates before. It depends on how you interpret the statements. On a quick read through the wikipedia article on the Mahavakyas, I can't find anything that definitely suggests that Brahman is personal. In one place it's described as the Ultimate Reality. In another place it actually says 'impersonal Brahman' (although that may be referring to one aspect or interpretation of it).

The opening of the Tao Te Ching says that the ultimate Tao cannot be told because it is eternal and nameless. That sounds impersonal to me.

There may be different traditions/variations within Kabbalah. The one with which I'm familiar calls the ultimate reality Ayin, a nothingness, therefore impersonal. Even the statement "I Am That Am" could be interpreted in different ways.