This statement, like the claim that we "only use 10% of our brains" is the result of a horrendous oversimplification of something true, to the point where it has become false.
The fact that we have 98% of DNA in common with chimpanzees is an indication that in terms of fundamental biochemistry we would share a lot of pathways, and nothing more. It does not establish that we are like them. It does not imply that we are similar to them even in terms of gross anatomy; it is reasonable to assume we might be, but depending on what's in the remaining 2% we could be (and are) very different indeed.
Examples:
Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans. Does that make cats 90% human? 91% chimpanzees?
90% of the mouse genome can be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. We last shared a common ancestor with them when the first dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Are we 99% mice?
The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans. Are fruit flies 60% human?
About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. Are we going to argue that humans are as similar in terms of gross anatomy to chickens as we are to fruit flies?
This is as nonsensical as the author's claim that one tribe of chimps committed "genocide" on another. No. They attacked them and killed them. They made no attempt to exterminate an entire ethnically identifiable race of chimpanzees.
This is the sort of preposterous nonsense that Deepak Chopra comes up with every time he opens his mouth about "physics," and is emblematic of the lack of intellectual discipline in our time.
It’s kind of like comparing the bill of materials for constructing a brothel to that for a church. Both are going to have a lot of wood, nails, glass, wallboard, plumbing, wiring, etc. The intent of the buildings varies sharply.